| Code Edition | Interpretation Number | Title | Date Approved | Keywords | File |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 18-0159 | Available Electrical Service | 15/02/2022 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0159 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: February 15, 2022 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Available Electrical Service Keywords: Electrical Service, Electrical Facilities, Available, Alternate Electrical Sources, Seasonal, Intermittently Occupied. Building Code Reference(s): Notes A-9.1.1.1.(1), 9.34.1.1.(1), 9.34.1.2.(1) Question: A property is located in a remote mountainside subdivision, substantially undeveloped, currently with no electrical service provided to the subject lot having a dwelling unit. The nearest BC Hydro pole is 152m away. Since the dwelling is planned to be a seasonal vacation cabin, a small photovoltaic electrical system is proposed as electrical service. 1) What is considered "available" electrical service? 2) Is the proposal for a small photovoltaic system considered acceptable for servicing electrical facilities required by Section 9.34? 3) What is considered adequate for servicing required the electrical facilities? Interpretation: 1) Sentence 9.34.1.2.(1) states that where electrical services are available, electrical facilities shall be provided for every building in conformance with Section 9.34. When considering availability of electrical service, it must be determined if such service is reasonably available. For example, if the electrical service is not immediately available from an electric utility/power supply authority, but could be provided in the foreseeable future, electrical wiring and facilities should comply with Section 9.34., to be readily compliant when the electrical service becomes available. Similarly, the possibility of alternate electrical sources being used currently or in the foreseeable future, should also be considered. This could include photovoltaic, solar, wind, generator, or other such systems. The Canadian Electrical Code does not specifically mandate that the electrical power supply must be provided only from a power utility. Section 64 of the CE Code recognizes stand-alone and interconnected with utilities renewable energy systems, energy production systems, and energy storage systems. Appendix B Note on Rule 64-102 offers the following explanation: "Rule 64-102 a) A stand-alone residential or commercial renewable energy installation may have an ac output and be connected to a building electrical system in compliance with all the Rules of this Code. Even though such an installation may have service entrance equipment rated at 100 or 200 A at 120/240 V, there is no requirement that the renewable energy source provide either the rated full current or the dual voltages of the service equipment. While safety requirements mandate full compliance with this Code, a renewable energy installation is usually designed so that the actual ac demands on the system are sized to the output rating of the renewable energy system" See also past BC Building Code Appeal #1116 and #1560. 2) No, with exceptions. See previous discussion. The Building Code does not preclude use of alternate sources of electricity, subject to the requirements of Sentence 9.34.1.1 .(1) for installations to comply with applicable installation standards and regulations. See also past BC Building Code Appeal #1353. 3) The Notes to Sentence 9.1.1.1.(1) discuss Application of Part 9 to seasonally or intermittently occupied buildings, noting that various Part 9 requirements recognize leniency may be appropriate in some circumstances provided basic health and safety provisions are not compromised. Electrical facilities set out in Subsection 9.34. are only required where electrical services are available to the dwelling unit. If there is no available electrical service, there is no obligation to provide electrical facilities. However, when an alternate source of electrical service is used to meet the threshold of availability, it must be properly sized, and in accordance with the applicable regulatory standards addressing health and safety. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0158 | Door Clearances Within Universal Washroom and Accessible Washroom Stalls | 14/06/2022 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0158 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: June 14, 2022 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Door Clearances Within Universal Washroom and Accessible Washroom Stalls Keywords: Accessible, Universal Toilet Room Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.8.(3), 3.8.3.6.(11 ), 3.8.3.11.(1 ), 3.8.3.12.(1) Questions: 1. Are the door clearances stated by Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11 ) applicable to entry doors of universal washrooms? 2. Can the required clearance under an accessible lavatory be included as part of the required latch-side clearance inside a universal washroom? 3. Interpretation 12-0039 states that clearances are not required for doors to an accessible stall within a multi-stall washroom. However, the Building Accessibility Handbook 2020 shows latch-side clearance at an accessible stall door. Is this now required? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Where water closets are required by Subsection 3.7.2, Sentence 3.8.2.8.(3) requires at least one universal washroom conforming to Subsection 3.8.3 either on the entrance storey or in another part of the building with an accessible path of travel, unless the water closets are for dwelling units only. Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) states the required clearances at swing doors, which are applicable to doors in an accessible path of travel unless the door has a power operator conforming to Sentence 3.8.3.6. (6). These required clearances include latchside clearances of at least 600 mm on the pull side of the door and at least 300 mm on the push side of the door. Sentence 3.8.3.12.(1) includes applicable requirements for universal washrooms, including that the door must comply with Article 3.8.3.6. There are no waivers or other requirements stating that the door clearances of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) are not applicable to universal washroom doors. The requirements are applicable regardless of whether the door has a self-closing device. 2. No. Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) requires the clear and level space of the latch-side clearance to extend the height of the doorway. As a result, protrusions such as a lavatory are not permitted into the required latch-side clearance. This was a new requirement in the BCBC 2018 that was not in previous BCBC editions. 3. No. On the "pull side" of a door, Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) requires a clear and level space at least 1500 mm by the width of the door with an additional latch-side space of at least 600 mm. On the "push side", Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) requires a clear and level space at least 1200 mm deep by the width of the door with an additional latch-side space of at least 300 mm. Sentence 3.8.3.11.(1) provides the required dimensions for accessible water closet stalls. The BCBC does not clearly state that these supersede the requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) but the clearances required by Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) exceed some of the dimensions required by Sentence 3.8.3.11.(1 ), which would make parts of Sentence 3.8.3.11.(1) redundant. For example, Sentence 3.8.3.11.(1 ) requires a stall to be at least 1500 mm by 1500 mm, but a stall of this dimension is too small to comply with Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) because the water closet would protrude into the required clear and level space. Sentence 3.8.3.11.(1) contains specific requirements for a 1500 mm by 1500 mm clear space in front of the accessible stall, and requires the door to be aligned with either the transfer space beside the water closet or with a clear space at least 1500 mm by 1500 mm within the stall. Also, the requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.11.(1) for offset door pulls, which are not a requirement for any other door in an accessible path of travel, allow easier door opening. Figure 3.8.3.11 .-B in the Building Accessibility Handbook 2020 shows how a disabled person can access a water closet, where the water closet protrudes into the clear and level space stated by Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11 ), and without the interior latch-side clearance required by Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11 ). Based on the requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.11.(1 ), the door clearances stated in Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) are not required for doors to accessible stalls. Although not required, it is recommended to provide 300 mm latch-side clearance inside the stall, on the push side of the stall door, to improve accessibility. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0157 | 3 Level Dwelling Unit on Sloping Site | 18/01/2022 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0157 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: January 18, 2022 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: 3 Level Dwelling Unit on Sloping Site Keywords: Building height, sloping site, grade Building Code Reference(s): Div A - 1.3.3.3.(1 ), 1.4.1.2., Div C - 9.9.9.1. Question: This project is a 3-level single dwelling unit located on an extremely sloping site. The lowest level (Level 1) has an exterior balcony on the rear side of the building that extends across the entire building. The exterior balcony is supported on posts with a height of more than 2 m. above the adjacent ground level. Refer to Page 3 for front and side elevations of the dwelling unit. The front elevation faces the street. Can this project be treated as 3 storeys in building height and designed under Part 9? Interpretation: Yes (based on definition of grade) Sentence 1.3.3.3.(1 ) of Division A states that buildings can be designed under Part 9 if they meet the following criteria: • Building height does not exceed 3 storeys • Building area does not exceed 600 sq.m. • Major occupancies may include Groups C, D, E, F1 or F2 The definitions in Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A state the following: • Grade means the lowest of the average levels of finished ground adjoining each exterior wall of a building, except that localized depressions need not be considered in the determination of average levels of finished ground. (See First storey and Note A- 1.4.1.2.(1 ).) • First storey means the uppermost storey having its floor level not more than 2 m. above grade. Since Grade is measured at the finished ground adjoining the exterior wall of the building, it is located at Point A on the Right Elevation drawing on Page 3. Note for this building that this elevation is consistent across with entire width of the building. Using the definitions above, Level 1 is treated as the 1st storey because it is less than 2 m. above the average grade on the lowest side. This results in this being a 3-storey building which can be designed to Part 9 as per Sentence 1.3.3.3.(1) of Division A. Note that evacuation from the building also complies with the requirements of Sentence 9.9.9.1 .(1 ): • The front door on Level 2 is the exterior exit door from the building. • Occupants on Level 3 travel not more than 1 storey to reach the Level 2 exterior exit door. • Occupants on Level 1 travel not more than 1 storey to reach the Level 2 exterior exit door. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0156 | Foundation Wall at Garage Overhead Door | 22/11/2022 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0156 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 22, 2022 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Foundation Wall at Garage Overhead Door Keywords: Foundation wall, garage overhead door Building Code Reference(s): 9.35.3.1., 9.35.3.2., Table 9.12.2.2. Question: For a garage that serves a single dwelling unit in a Part 9 building, is it permissible to omit the foundation wall beneath an overhead garage door? Interpretation: No Refer to the Building Code Appeal Board decisions #1449 and #1453. It was the determination of the Board that a foundation is required below the garage doors. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0155 | Horticulture as it applies to a Farm Building | 18/01/2022 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0155 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: January 18, 2022 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book I: General Subject: Horticulture as it applies to a Farm Building Keywords: Farm building, agriculture, horticulture Building Code Reference(s): Division A, 1.4.1.2. - definition of farm building Question(s): 1. Would the description "the practice of growing fruits vegetables, flowers or ornamental plants (horticulture)" be accepted as falling within or being equal to the description of "farming" within the definition of farm building in the BC Building Code (BCBC)? 2. Would those lands upon which the practice of horticulture is carried out be sufficient to consider that land to be devoted to farming? Interpretation: 1. Yes - Provided that it can be shown to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) that the proposed horticultural practice is supporting an appropriate agricultural use. The term farm building, is associated with the specific definition in Division A, Article 1.4.1 .2. in the BCBC as follows: "Farm building means a building or part thereof that does not contain a residential occupancy and that is associated with and located on land devoted to the practice of farming, and used essentially for the housing of equipment or livestock, or the production, storage or processing of agricultural and horticultural produce or feeds. (See Note A-1 .4.1.2.(1 ).)" While the term "horticulture" is not defined in the building code, it is has long been associated with farming, and the production of horticultural produce is included in the definition of farm building. Horticulture is generally defined by various sources as "the art or practice of garden cultivation and management"i which most AHJ are likely to accept as being "essentially [for] the production, storage or processing of agricultural and horticultural produce". Further to this, various examples of buildings associated with horticulture are identified in examples associated note to the definition of farm building in A-1 .4. 1.2.(1) (excerpt below) or in other examples within the National Farm Code. "Farm Building Farm buildings as defined in Article 1.4.1.2. include, but are not limited to, produce storage and packing facilities, livestock and poultry housing, milking centres, manure storage facilities, grain bins, silos, feed preparation centres, farm workshops, greenhouses, farm retail centres, and horse riding, exercise and training facilities. Farm buildings may be classed as low or high human occupancy, depending on the occupant load[ ... ]" However, it is up to the owner or designers to demonstrate to the AHJ that the use and design of the specific building is required or meaningfully connected with the stated agricultural purpose (e.g. cultivation of the soil to provide food or other products). 2. No - A horticultural use alone is not sufficient to consider the building a farm building. The term farm building, included above, identifies three key criteria to establish that a structure is a farm building, being that: 1. The building does not contain a residential occupancy, 2. The building be used for the practice of farming, and 3. The land on which the building is located be devoted to the practice of farming. The first two criteria, are dependent upon the specifics of the design and intended use of the building. As previously discussed, it is up to the owner and designers to demonstrate to the AHJ that the intended use and the design of the building will support an agricultural purpose. The third essential requirement, that the building be located on land devoted to the practice of farming, is not typically under the control of the owner or designers. As previously identified in Interpretation 18- 0038, the use of land may be controlled by governmental entities such as the Agricultural Land Commission or through regulations such as zoning bylaw. In most jurisdictions, land that is not controlled by zoning regulations or reserved solely for agricultural use may be used or repurposed for uses that are inconsistent with an agricultural purpose or include a majority of other buildings whose use is not associated with agriculture. This would not be consistent with the basic assumptions of the National Farm Building Code, whose special requirements are " ... based on the low human occupant load, and remote location of typical farm structures or special nature of the structures involved." (ref.: page v., National Farm Building Code (1995)). Therefore, the additional requirement for the land to be dedicated to farming through legal statute, protection status, or other equivalent restriction is required. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0154 | Occupancy Classification for Take-out Pizza | 14/06/2022 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0154 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: June 14, 2022 Building Code Edition : BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Occupancy classification for take-out pizza Keywords: Group A, Division 2, Low Occupant Load Building Code Reference(s): 3.1 .2.6. Question: What is the occupancy classification for take-out pizza shop without seats? Interpretation: Group D, Business and Personal Services. Article 3.1.2.6. permits a suite of Group A, Division 2 assembly occupancy, except a child or infant daycare facility, to be classified as a Group D, business and personal services occupancy with conditions. One of the conditions is Clause 3.1.2.6.(1 )(a) which limits the number of persons in the suite to 30 but it does not limit the number of seats because Article 3.1 .2.6. applies to all assembly occupancy with or without seats. For example, a dance studio or a fitness centre is without seats. A pizza take-out with or without seats can be classified as Group D as long as the number of persons in the suite does not exceed 30. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0153 | Minimum Size of Vents for an Oil Interceptor | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0153 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: What is the minimum size required for the two vents serving the chambers of an oil interceptor? Interpretation: Sentences 2.5.5.2.(4) and 2.5.5.2.(5) provide the minimum sizing requirements for the vents installed at the opposite ends of an oil interceptor. Sentence 2.5.5.2.(4) states that the two vents are permitted to be one size smaller than the largest connected drainage pipe (i.e., if the largest pipe draining into the oil interceptor is 3" then two 2" vents would be permitted) but in no case shall the vents be smaller than 1 ¼". In the case of a manufactured oil interceptor, the manufacturer's recommendations can be used to size these vents. Sentence 2.5.5.2.(5) requires a vent serving an oil interceptor which is installed outside a building in areas where the vents may be subject to frost closure to be minimum 3" in size. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0152 | Opening Mechanism for Egress Windows | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0152 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Opening Mechanism for Egress Windows Keywords: Opening mechanism, egress window, specialized knowledge Building Code Reference(s): 9.9.10.1.(1) Question: The subject building is an unsprinklered Part 9 residential building. If a window is required as an egress from a bedroom as described in Article 9.9.10.1. , can the window opening mechanism be a "crank style" opener? Interpretation: Yes Sentence 9.9.10.1.(1 ) permits the use of an outside window as a means of egress from a bedroom provided the window conforms with the following: a) The unobstructed opening is not less than 0.35 m2 in area with no dimension less than 380 mm, b) The window will remain open during an emergency without the need of additional support, c) The window can be opened from the inside without the use of keys, tools or specialized knowledge, and d) The windows can be opened without the removal of sashes or hardware. Provided there are no sashes on the window a crank-type opening mechanism meets all the criteria listed above. It is interpreted that "specialized knowledge" is not required to open the window because it is commonly used on a daily basis by the building occupants for natural ventilation, and it is highly visible from the interior of the bedroom. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0151 | Hot and Cold Control Location for Single Lever Faucets | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0151 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 November 16, 2021 BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Hot and Cold Control Location for Single Lever Faucets Faucets, Hot and Cold Controls 2.6.1.1.(1) Sentence 2.6.1.1.(1 ) of the BCPC requires that where fixtures are supplied with separate hot and cold water controls, the hot water control is located on the left and the cold on the right. What is the requirement, if any, for single lever faucets? Interpretation: Although specific regarding the location of hot and cold controls for faucets with separate water controls, the BCPC is silent when considering the hot and cold control direction for single lever faucets. The Committee considers best practice to be having the hot and cold direction as indicated on the faucet itself. Most manufacturers provide some sort of identifying feature to indicate hot and cold direction. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0150 | Picnic Shelters, Open Air Pavilions | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0150 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question(s): AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 November 16, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Picnic Shelters, Open Air Pavilions picnic shelter, pavilion, open-air structure, occupancy Division A, 1 .1 .1 .1 . , 1 .4.1 .2., Division B, 3.1.2.1., 3.7.2. 1. Does the definition of "building" in Division A, Article 1.4.1 .2 apply to picnic shelters, or other open-air pavilion-like structures with roofs but no walls, where the structure is larger than 1 Om2 in building area. 2. Is a Group A, Division 2 major occupancy classification appropriate for a picnic shelters, or other openair pavilion-like structures with roofs but no walls? 3. Do minimum plumbing requirements for washroom facilities such as the health requirements of Section 3.7. of the BCBC apply to picnic shelters, or other open-air pavilion-like structures with roofs but no walls? Interpretation: 1. Yes - but to a limited extent. The definition of the building is particularly broad, and was intended as such, to be able to encompass many possible structures. Building means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. Occupancy means the use or intended use of a building or part thereof for the shelter or support of persons, animals or property. This combination of definitions is sufficient to cause the definition of building to include picnic shelters, or other open-air pavilion-like structures with roofs but no walls. However, as noted in the most recent User's Guide to the National Building Code (1995), common sense must be exercised in its interpretation, identifying that: "An authority, at the time of adopting the NBC 1995, may exclude certain specific structures from the provisions of the NBC 1995 and also exclude structures covered by other legislation. In most cases, there is no doubt that a structure is a building, but in a number of instances, a structure might not be considered a building for the purposes of the NBC 1995 [...] Many building uses do not fall precisely into the categories given in the NBC 1995 and in these instances the designer and the authority must agree on the most appropriate fit.[ ... ] Good judgment must be exercised in determining whether to apply a requirement under extenuating circumstances, provided always that the safety of the occupants is not threatened."i Thus in the case of a picnic structure, as this may be classified as a building, the designer should go through an exercise of determining what requirements of the Code are reasonably relevant to the structure at hand in the context of what was intended by the Code. Should there be a question on the applicability of a particular requirement, then this needs to be discussed with the local AHJ in order to find a consensus on how the requirements of the BCBC should be applied in this circumstance. For example it is appropriate to apply the requirements of Part 4 for structural sufficiency against earthquake and wind forces for a picnic structure, as it collapse could reasonably be expected to severely injure occupants or damage objects sheltering beneath, and it would not be unreasonable to expect it to perform similar to a building in this respect. Similarly, following the same logic, the application of thermal resistance of Part 5 Environmental separation requirements to this structure is inappropriate - not because this is not feasible, but because this is inconsistent with the intended purpose of the picnic structure. A similar exercise should be applied to all other requirements which might apply to the building to establish what requirements might apply if compliance with the Code is not readily apparent. 2. Maybe - Group A, Division 2 is one possible outcome. The occupancy of a picnic structure, or other open-air pavilion-like structures with roofs but no walls, if seen to be a building can readily be determined from Division B, 3.1.2.1. and the associated note A- 3.1.2.1.(1 ). As the intended use of most such structures may be expected to house a gathering of many persons, it would seem that it is appropriate to classify this as an Assembly occupancy of some sort, probably as a Group A, Division 2, or Group A, Division 4, depending on the details of its use and design. As discussed in the previous response above, it is likely that some or even many Code requirements may not apply, and this may necessitate further discussion with the AHJ if these appear unclear or there is disagreement on the concepts. 3. No - But this will depend upon the specifics of the design. A typical picnic shelter need not comply with the literal requirements of Subsection 3.7.2. for washrooms. However, for larger structures, it may be reasonable to consider providing means to satisfy the washroom requirements of Subsection 3.7.2., as these are relevant to the public health objectives of the Code. A reasonable alternative to direct compliance, may be to provide suitable washroom facilities and capacity in an adjacent building, or through separate purpose-built facilities providing so as to such capacity in a certain area or zone. Discussion with the local AHJ is likely appropriate so as to properly consider what needs are relevant for that community. Ref.: User's Guide to the National Building Code ( 1995). What is a Building. Chapter 3. Pg. 5. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0149 | Pier-Type Foundations | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0149 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Pier-Type Foundations Keywords: pier-type, foundations, building height Building Code Reference(s): 9.4.1 .1., 9.15.1 .1.(2), 9.15.2.3., 2.2.7.2.(1 )(c)(i) of Division C Question: This Part 9 building is designed using pier-type foundations. If the building height of this building exceeds 1 storey, do the pier-type foundations have to be designed to Part 4? Interpretation: Yes Sentence 9.15.2.3.(1) requires that pier-type foundations be designed to support the applied loads from the superstructure. Sentences 9.15.2.3.(2) to (4) provide prescriptive requirements for the design of pier-type foundations when the building height does not exceed 1 storey. For Part 9 buildings that exceed 1 storey in building height, the requirements of Sentence 9.15.2.3.(1) would still apply, but the prescriptive provisions of Sentences 9.15.2.3.(2) to (4) would not apply. Article 9.15.1.1. describes the scope where Section 9.15. applies. Pier-type foundations are not mentioned in Sentence 9.15.1.1.(1 ), so the design of pier-type foundations must be based on Sentence 9.15.1.1.(2) which refers to Section 9.4. Clause 9.4.1.1.(1 )(a) permits the structural design to be based on the requirements provided elsewhere in Part 9. Since there are no prescriptive provisions in Part 9 for the design of pier-type foundations in Part 9 buildings that exceed 1 storey in building height, the appropriate design procedure is stated in Clause 9.4.1.1.(1 )(c) which requires the design to be in accordance with Part 4 using loads, deflection and vibration limits of either Part 9 or Part 4. Note that Subclause 2.2.7.2.(1 )(c)(i) of Division C would require the structural design of the pier-type foundations to be designed by a registered professional when the building height exceeds 1 storey. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0148 | Convenience Store and Quick-service Restaurant, Occupancy Classification and Washroom Count | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0148 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 November 16, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Convenience Store and Quick-service Restaurant, Occupancy Classification and Washroom Count Mercantile, Retail, Restaurant, Occupancy, Washrooms 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.6, 3.7.2.2.(15) & (16) A convenience store not more than 500m2 has an integral quick-service restaurant (QSR). The ORS takes up about 1/4 of the gross floor area with 4 seats. 1. What is the occupancy classification for the use of the premises? 2. Can Sentence 3.7.2.2.(16) be used for the calculation of number of washrooms required to serve the occupancy? Interpretation: 1. Mercantile, Group E. In this case the mercantile use is the primary use and the OSR is an integral subsidiary use. In some instances, there may be no commercial kitchen or significant seating or food preparation area. It is noted that Article 3.1.2.6. permits Group A Division 2 assembly uses (other than daycare) to be considered Group Duse if the suite occupant load does not exceed 30 persons. Based on very limited seating and proportionate area used for assembly functions, it is reasonable to include the restaurant use as an integral and incidental part of the mercantile occupancy. 2. Yes. In this case the mercantile use is th e primary use and the QSR is an integral subsidiary use. Except for the staff, the other occupants are not expected to be on the premises for a long period of time. The intent statements for Sentence 3.7.2.2.(16) indicates: "To expand the application of Table 3.7.2.2.B. regarding the number of water closets required to suites of mercantile occupancy whose area is not more than 500 m2 , on the basis that customers are not in the occupancy for any appreciable length of time." Note that Sentence 3.7.2.2.(15) requires that if this building has a floor area over 600m2, the water closets must be located so that they are accessible to the public when the building is occupied. See also BC Building Code Appeal #1831. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0147 | Notes to the BCBC | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0147 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Notes to the BCBC Keywords: Notes, legal effect Building Code Reference(s): 1.1.3.1. of Division A Question: Do the Appendices and Notes in the building code have any legal effect? Interpretation: No (with some exceptions) Sentence 1.1 .3.1.(1) of Division A clearly states that Appendices and Notes of this Code have no legal effect, except for the following: a) the following Notes: i) A-Table 9.23.3.5.-B, and ii) A-9.23.13. , including Table A-9.23.13. , b) Appendix C of Division B, and c) Appendix D of Division B. Sentence 1.1.3.1.(2) of Division A also states that "References to the Appendices and Notes of this Code have no legal effect". The Notes and Appendices provide very useful information on the intent of the building code and methods for implementing the prescriptive requirements of the building code, but they are not legally binding in a court of law. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0146 | Fire Stopping and Fire Resistance Contribution of Subfloors in Wood Frame Floor Assemblies | 19/10/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0146 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: October 19, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire Stopping and Fire Resistance Contribution of Subfloors in Wood Frame Floor Assemblies Keywords: Fire Stop, Subfloor, Fire-Resistance Rating Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.9.1.(1), D-2.3 Questions: 1. Where a wood frame floor assembly is a fire separation with a fire resistance rating, is fire stopping required at services such as piping or conduit that penetrate the subfloor, if the services do not penetrate the gypsum wallboard membrane on the underside of the floor? 2. When the component additive method is used to determine the fire-resistance rating of a wood frame floor assembly, is any time assigned to the subfloor? Interpretation: 1. Yes, unless the penetrations comply with one of the other BCBC requirements to waive the fire stopping. Sentence 3.1.9.1.(1) requires penetrations of a fire separation, or of a membrane forming part of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating, to be: a) Sealed by a fire stop system that has the required F rating, in accordance with CAN/ULC-S115, or b) Cast in place, or c) Tightly fitted. There are additional exceptions in Sentence 3.1.9.1.(2) to (5) which do not relate to this question. The BCBC Notes provide further information on the requirements for cast in place or tightly fitted services. With respect to Sentence 3.1.9.1.(1), "membrane" is not a defined term in the BCBC. A subfloor could be considered as a membrane in the dictionary definition of a thin covering over an opening. However, the term "penetrations of a fire separation" refers to penetrations that extend partly through a fire separation, not just to penetrations that extend entirely through the separation. Therefore, fire stopping is required for penetrations through the subfloor, unless the penetrations comply with the criteria to be considered as cast in place or tightly fitted. Also refer to the final paragraph in the response below for question 2. 2. No. The component additive method to determine fire-resistance ratings is described in Section D- 2.3 in Appendix D of the BCBC. Sentence D-2.3.4.(1) states that the fire-resistance rating of a framed assembly is calculated by adding the time assigned for the membrane on the fire exposed side to the time assigned for the framing members, and then adding any additional time for applicable additional protective measures such as specific types of insulation as described in Table D-2.3.4.-G. The subfloor is not on the fire-exposed side of the floor assembly, so there is no time assigned for the subfloor. The subfloor will not stay in place longer than the joists that support it, so the subfloor cannot be assumed to add to the fire-resistance of the assembly. In a wood frame floor assembly, the main contribution of the subfloor to the fire-resistance is that the subfloor is intended to stay in place long enough to prevent premature burn-through of the assembly. Table D-2.3.5 states the minimum requirements for the subfloor. For example, where the structural members of a floor assembly are wood joists, wood I-joists, wood trusses and cold-formed steel joists, the minimum required subfloor is 15.5 mm T & G plywood or 15.5 mm oriented strandboard. Note that this principle also applies to question 1 above. If there is no firestopping of penetrations through the subfloor, and the penetrations are not cast in place or tightly fitted, flame or smoke may pass through the floor assembly while the subfloor and the joists are still in place. This would reduce the effective fire-resistance of the floor fire separation. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0145 | Alternative Solutions | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0145 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 21 , 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Alternative solutions Keywords: Alternative solutions, compliance options Building Code Reference(s): Division A: 1.2.1.1.(1 ) Question: Can an alternative solution be submitted and approved where there is a viable compliance option that directly complies with the solutions in Division B? Interpretation: Yes The BCBC provides two options for code compliance: using the applicable solutions in Division B (direct compliance), or by using alternative solutions that achieve at least the minimum level of performance of Division B. The acceptable solutions are neither better than an alternative solution nor is it a requirement to directly comply with the code when it is possible. The notes to 1.2.1.1 .(1 ) states that an alternative solution must perform "as well as" the acceptable solution. The two means of compliance are equal. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0144 | 3" Vent for a Sanitary Building Drain Connected to a Private Sewage Disposal System | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0144 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 September 21, 2021 BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) 3" Vent for a Sanitary Building Drain Connected to a Private Sewage Disposal System Building Drain, Vent Size 2.5.7.2.(2), 2.5.8.4.(5) Does a sanitary building drain which is connected to a private sewage disposal system, such as a septic tank and disposal field, require a 3" vent as required by Sentences 2.5.7.2.(2) and 2.5.8.4. (5)? Interpretation: Yes, Sentences 2.5.7.2.(2) and 2.5.8.4.(5) do not contain an exception or exclusion for a building drain which connects to a private sewage disposal system and therefore at least one vent minimum 3" in size must be installed. See also POABC Interpretations #5101 and #5089 and BCIC Interpretation #06-0035 (attached to this Interpretation). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0143 | Passive Venting for Buildings Designed to the Energy Step Code | 19/10/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0143 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 October 19, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Passive Venting for Buildings Designed to the Energy Step Code Passive venting, Step Code 9.32.3.4., 9.36.6. If a Part 9 building is required to be designed to the Energy Step Code, is it permissible to provide passive venting as the principal ventilation system? Interpretation: No (with one exception) Except as permitted by Sentence 9.32.3.4.(6), Sentence 9.32.3.4.(1) requires the principal ventilation system to mechanically provide supply air in accordance with Sentences 2 to 5. Sentence 9.32.3.4.(6) permits the use of passive ventilation in certain circumstances. Clause 9.32.3.4.(6)(a)(iv) does not permit the use of passive ventilation in Part 9 buildings that are required to be designed to the Energy Step Code per 9.36.6. except for secondary suites. So only secondary suites are permitted to be provided with passive venting as the principal ventilation system in a Part 9 building that is required to be designed to the Energy Step Code. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0142 | BCPC Requirements for an Accessory Building Less than 10 m2 | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0142 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 (BCBC), Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: BCPC Requirements for an Accessory Building Less than 10 m2 Keywords: Accessory Building, Plumbing System Building Code Reference(s): Division A 1.1.1 .1.(2)(e) (BCBC), Division A 1.1.1.1 .(1) (BCPC) Question: Do the requirements of the BCPC apply to the plumbing system installed in an accessory building less than 1 O m2 in building area? Interpretation: Yes, Clause 1 .1 .1 .1 . (2)( e) in Division A of the BCBC states that the Code does not apply to "accessory buildings less than 1 O m2 that do not create a hazard." Sentence 1.1.1.1.(1) of the BCPC states "This Code applies to the design, installation, extension, alteration, renewal or repair of plumbing systems in and for buildings in the circumstances described in Section 1.1. of Division A of Book I of this Code." The intent of exempting small accessory buildings from the requirements of the BCBC is to ensure that overly restrictive requirements are not applied to these types of buildings as they are less likely to be used to shelter persons and therefore "do not create a hazard". However, with the addition of a plumbing system, the purpose of this building clearly changes into one which would support the use of the structure for longer durations of time. Further, since the plumbing system is likely connected to municipal infrastructure (water and sanitary for example) most authorities would have concerns in regard to connecting non-conforming work to their systems. Clearly, plumbing systems which are not installed to the minimum requirements contained in the BCPC could present a health hazard to the occupants of a building which can be interpreted as creating a hazard. It is also worth noting that in most jurisdictions even if a building is exempt from BCBC and BCPC requirements that jurisdiction's Zoning and other local requirements would still apply. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0141 | Egress from 3 Storey Townhouse | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0141 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 September 21, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Egress from 3 storey townhouse Egress, townhouse, suite over another, balcony, travel distance limit to exit exceeding 1 storey 9.9.9.1 (2) & (3) A 40m2 CRU is located at the first storey of a 3 storey townhouse as shown in the cross section below. Exiting from the dwelling unit is at the first storey with no balcony on the third storey. Can the third storey be provided with an openable window for egress purposes in accordance with Sentence 9.9.9.1.(2)? Interpretation: No. Sentence 9.9.9.1.(2) is not applicable because the CRU is a separate suite. The egress can be provided in accordance with Sentence 9.9.9.1.(3) which requires direct access to a balcony on the third storey. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0140 | Building Area | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0140 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 21 , 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Building Area Keywords: Building Area Building Code Reference(s): Division A, 1.4.1.2. Question: Is cladding system included in the definition of Building Area? Interpretation: Yes. The Article 1 .4.1.2. defines that Building Area is measured within outside surface of exterior walls above grade. This definition makes it clear that the wall composition is not being divided into a variety of components. Note: Zoning by-laws often allow to measure the exterior walls to the exterior sheathing for calculations of the Floor Areas. Building Area should not be mistaken with the Floor Area. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0139 | Slope to Drain Requirements for Exterior Courtyard | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0139 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 September 21, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Slope to drain requirements for exterior courtyard Slope to drain, BCPC 2018, Division B, Part 7; 2.4.10.4.; BCBC 2018, Part 9; 9.14.6.1. and 9.26.18.1. What is the required slope of the surface of an exterior courtyard to provide adequate drainage and what is the minimum spacing of piped area drains (if provided) in the exterior courtyard of a residential building? Interpretation: The exterior courtyard of a building, that does not have natural drainage away from the building, should be provided with a drainage system as per BCPC 2018 Article 2.4.10.4. There is no code imposed requirement for minimum slope of the surface. However, good engineering practice would suggest that 2% slope be provided on the draining surface. Slopes of 1 % or less, depending on the surface and distance, provide ineffective drainage. The number and spacing of drains on a roof or paved surface are limited only by the size of the area being drained and corresponding sizing of the drains. There are no minimum spacing requirements provided in the BC Plumbing Code. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0138 | Accessibility to Various Levels via Elevators | 16/11/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0138 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Accessibility to various levels via elevators Keywords: Accessibility, levels, elevators Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.1.(1 ), 3.8.2.3., 9.5.2.1.(1) Question: A Part 9 three-storey non-residential building is constructed on a sloping site, such that the first storey is at grade with a street at the rear, and the second storey is at grade with a street at the front. The first storey has a mezzanine. All levels are less than 600m2 • 1. Does the building require an elevator for accessibility? 2. If the first storey with mezzanine is a single suite, is elevator access required to the mezzanine level? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Sentence 9.5.2.1.(1) requires every Part 9 building to be designed to Section 3.8 for accessibility. Sentence 3.8.2.1.(1) requires accessibility for the building and it is not possible to apply the exception in Clause 3.8.2.1.(1 )(g). This building has more than 1 storey above the first storey. The Building Accessibility Handbook 2020 confirms: "This exemption applies to buildings with not more than one storey above the first storey. A building with two or more storeys above the first storey must be fully accessible. Mezzanines that are not considered as storeys for the purposes of determining building height are considered storeys for the purposes of applying Clauses 3.8.2.1.(1 )(f) and (g)". Accessibility for floor areas at various levels of buildings is typically achieved by means of elevators. This does not preclude other acceptable methods of achieving accessibility. 2. Yes, unless exemption conditions are met. For a suite with a mezzanine, accessibility is not required for the mezzanine if the exemption criteria in Clause 3.8.2.1.(1 )(f) can be met as follows: i) less than 600 m2 in floor area, ii) contains only facilities that are also contained on the accessible storey, iii) does not contain an assembly major occupancy with an area more than 100m2, and iv) is not served by a passenger-elevating device connecting the storey next above or below the accessible storey. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0137 | Application of Energy Step Code to Part 9 Buildings | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0137 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 21, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Application of Energy Step Code to Part 9 Buildings Keywords: Energy Step Code, Part 9 Buildings, Part 10 Building Code Reference(s): Div B: 10.2.1.1., 9.36. 1.3.(1 ), 9.36.6.1., Div A: 1.3.3.3.(1) Question: Does the Energy Step Code apply to Part 9 buildings? Interpretation: Yes, but only for Group C occupancies and the requirements of the local authority. The Energy Step Code applies to Part 9 buildings, but not all of them. Sentence 9.36.1.3.(1) provides compliance options for energy efficiency which includes Subsection 9.36.6. for Energy Step Code. See Table A-9.36.1.3. for compliance options for Part 9 buildings. Please note that the Energy Step Code is an optional compliance path that each local government may adopt if they wish to require a level of efficiency that goes above and beyond the BC Building Code. Energy targets and implementation strategies may vary from one municipality to another, so it is best to contact your local government to learn more about energy regulations in your jurisdiction. Table A-9. 36.1.3. Energy Efficiency Compliance Options for Part 9 Buildings Forming Part of Note A-9.36 1 3. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0136 | Handrail Encroachment into Clear Width of Accessible Ramps | 22/11/2022 | File No: 18-0136 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC . INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 November 22, 2022 BC Building Code 2018 Handrail Encroachment into Clear Width of Accessible Ramps Clear width, ramps, handrails, encroachment 3.4.3.4., A-3.4.3.4. , 3.8.3.2.(1 )(a), 3.8.3.5.(1) Is the minimum clear width of an accessible ramp measured between the inside face of handrails as indicated in A-3.4.3.4. in the Notes to Part 3? Interpretation: No Article 3.4.3.4. relates to minimum headroom requirements in exits, which are 2050 mm typically, 2030 mm at doorways, and 1980 mm at door closers. The illustration in the Notes to Part 3 in A- 3.4.3.4. relates to the clear width of an exit where the headroom clearances are applicable. Clause 3.8.3.5.(1 )(a) requires ramps in an accessible path of travel to have a clear width of not less than 1500 mm (typically), 915 mm for passageways that are narrower than 6m, and two 915 mm wide ramps in passageways that are wider than 6m. Clause 3.8.3.2.(1 )(a) permits handrails to encroach up to 100 mm on both sides of an accessible path of travel, which would include ramps that are used by persons with disabilities. Article 3.8.3.5.(1 )(a) refers to A-3.4.3.4., but this reference is intended to apply to the headroom requirements, rather than the method for measuring the minimum clear width of accessible ramps. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0134 | Combustible Soffits Within 0.45 m of a Property Line | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0134 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 21 , 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Combustible Soffits Within 0.45 m of a Property Line Keywords: Soffits Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.15.5.(5) to (11) Questions: Is a combustible soffit from a detached garage or accessory building serving a single family dwelling unit permitted to extend to less than 0.45 m of an adjacent property? Interpretation: No Sentence 9.10.15.5.(6) states that certain small buildings are exempted from the requirements of Sentence 9.10.15.5.(5) which otherwise limits combustible projections in the vicinity of property lines or other buildings. The exemption of Sentence (6) is applicable to buildings containing 1 or 2 dwelling units only; and to detached garages or accessory buildings that serve only one dwelling unit and are located on the same property as the dwelling unit, and where the dwelling unit is the only major occupancy on the property. Soffits in those buildings must comply with Sentence 9.10.15.5.(8) to (11 ). Sentence 9.10.15.5.(8) states that where an exposing building face has a limiting distance of not more than 0.45 m, projecting roof soffits above the exposing building face are not permitted. There is an exception referring to Sentence (10), but Sentence (10) deals only with property lines at streets, lanes or public throughfares, not property lines to adjacent properties. Where an exposing building face has a limiting distance exceeding 0.45 m, Sentence 9.10.15.5.(9) allows a combustible soffit to extend only to within 0.45 m of the property line to an adjacent property. Sentence 9.10.15.5.(11) states the protection required for combustible soffits that project to within 1.2 m of a property line. In Sentences 9.10.15.5.(8) and (9), there is no reference or exception to Sentence {11 ). In other words, compliance with Sentence {11) does not mean that the requirement of Sentences (8) and (9) can be waived. A combustible soffit is not permitted to project to less than 0.45 m of the property line to an adjacent property, even when the soffit is protected. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0133 | Minimum Size Cleanout for a Sanitary Building Drain | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0133 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 September 21, 2021 BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Minimum Size Cleanout for a Sanitary Building Drain Cleanout, Building Drain, Minimum Size 1.4.1.2.(1 ), 2.4.7.1.(6), 2.4.7.2.(1 ), 2.4.7.2.(2) Where a soil-or-waste pipe serves two water closets in the lowest level of a building, what is the minimum size cleanout required for this pipe? Interpretation: The first step in deciding which BCPC provisions will apply to the pipe mentioned above is naming it appropriately through the definitions, the following are the appropriate defined terms; • Building drain means the lowest horizontal piping, including any horizontal offset, that conducts sewage, clear-water waste or storm water by gravity to a building sewer. • Sanitary building drain means a building drain that conducts sewage to a building sewer from the most upstream soil-or-waste stack, branch or fixture drain serving a water closet. Given the above definitions the soil-or-waste pipe from the question above is clearly a sanitary building drain (up to and including the fixture drain of the most upstream water closet), and any provisions unique to a building drain will apply. Sentence 2.4.7.1.(6) requires a cleanout fitting, conforming to Sentence 2.4.7.2.(2), to be located as close as practical to where the building drain leaves the building (inside or outside the building). Sentence 2.4.7.2.(1) states "Except as provided in Sentences (2) to (4), the size and spacing of cleanouts in nominally horizontal pipes of a drainage system shall conform to Table 2.4.7.2. This means that you do not use Table 2.4.7.2. if these Sentences apply to the pipe in question. Sentence 2.4.7.2.(2) states that "Cleanout fittings for building drains shall be at least 4" in size". It is worth noting that this was a new Sentence in the 2018 BCPC. Since it has been established that the soil-or-waste pipe in question is a sanitary building drain, the minimum size cleanout would need to be 4" to comply with Sentence 2.4.7.2.(2), regardless of the size of pipe the cleanout serves. The Committee recognizes that this may have been an unintended consequence of this new Sentence, however a Code change would be required to alter this interpretation (also see Interpretation #18-0088). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0132 | Spatial Separation between Buildings Above a 3.2.1.2. Slab | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0132 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 21 , 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Spatial Separation between Buildings Above a 3.2.1.2. Slab Keywords: Storage garage, separation building, spatial separations Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.1.2. Question: For a project that is sprinklered throughout and has multiple buildings above a common basement storage garage that is designed in accordance with Article 3.2.1.2., are unlimited unprotected openings permitted in an exposing building face of one building that faces an adjacent building which is located above the same basement storage garage. Interpretation: Yes (with one exception) Article 3.2.1.2. permits a basement storage garage to be treated as a separate building for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.2. (Building Size and Construction Relative to Occupancy) and 3.2.5.12.(2) & (3) (the application of sprinkler design standards NFPA 13R and NFPA 130). For Subsections 3.2.3., 3.2.4., 3.2.5. [except 3.2.5.12.(2) & (3)], 3.2.6., 3.2.7, 3.2.8. and 3.2.9., the basement storage garage and all buildings above the basement storage garage are treated as a single building. Sentence 3.2.3.14.(3) permits unlimited unprotected openings between 2 adjacent fire compartments when the buildings are sprinklered throughout, except when the unprotected openings are on opposite sides of a firewall. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0131 | Principal Entrance and Access Route | 27/06/2023 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0131 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2023-07-04 Interpretation Date: June 27, 2023 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Principal Entrance and Access Route Keywords: Street, Access Route, Principal Entrance Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.2.10.(1), 3.2.2.10.(2), 3.2.2.10.(3), 3.2.5.4.(1)(a), 3.2.5.5.(1), 3.2.5.6.(2), Question: 1. Is the principal entrance to a building conforming to 3.2.2.50. or 3.2.2.58. required to be located within the 10% of the building perimeter that is within 15 m of a street or fire truck access route as per Sentence 3.2.2.10.(3)? 2. Is the fire truck access route to the principal entrance in accordance with 3.2.5.5.(1) required to be within 20 m vertically of the uppermost floor level for buildings conforming to 3.2.2.50. or 3.2.2.58.? `Interpretation: 1. No (with conditions). Sentence 3.2.2.10.(1) requires that every building shall face a street located in conformance with the requirements of Articles 3.2.5.4. and 3.2.5.5. for access routes. Sentence 3.2.2.10.(2) permits a fire truck access route conforming to Subsection 3.2.5. to be considered as a street for the purposes of Subsections 3.2.2. and 3.2.5. A building can face a street or a fire truck access route. Clause 3.2.5.4.(1)(a) requires a building, which is more than 3 storeys in building height or more than 600 sq.m. in building area, be provided with access routes for fire department vehicles to the building face having a principal entrance. The principal entrance can face a street or a fire truck access route. Sentence 3.2.2.10.(3) requires that at least 10% of the perimeter of a building conforming to Articles 3.2.2.50 or 58 must be within 15 m of a street. If a building meets only the minimum requirement of the 10% of the perimeter facing a street and no other fire truck access route to the building is provided, the principal entrance must be within that 10% portion of the building perimeter. If there is a separate fire truck access route to the principal entrance then it is not required to be within that 10% portion. Regardless of the location of the principal entrance on the building perimeter it needs to be between 3m and 15m from the street or fire truck access route as per 3.2.5.5.(1). 2. No. The 20m height only applies to the 10% of the perimeter of a building that is within 15m of a street or a fire truck access route. Sentence 3.2.5.6.(2) requires the access route described in Sentence 3.2.2.10.(3) to be within 20 m vertically of the uppermost storey. The intent of the 20 m requirement is “to limit the probability that a firefighter’s hose stream will be unable to reach the roof ….” This refers only to the 10% of the building perimeter that is required to be within 15 m of a street and it does not apply to the principal entrance itself. Other portions of the street or the fire department vehicle access are not required to be within 20 m vertically of the uppermost level. If the building faces two or three streets the 20 m requirement as per Sentence 3.2.5.6.(2) does not apply since the hose stream from the fire truck should be able to reach the roof of the building with improved fire truck access. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0130 | Expansion Joint Requirements for Dry Vents | 20/07/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0130 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Expansion Joint Requirements for Dry Vents Keywords: Expansion Joints, Building Shrinkage, Structural Settlement, Expansion / Contraction of DWV Piping Building Code Reference(s): 2.3.3.9.(1), Note A-2.3.3.9.(1), Figure A-2.3.3.9. Question: Are expansion joints required on dry vent piping systems or can the requirements of Sentence 2.3.3.9.(1) be satisfied by other means? Interpretation: Sentence 2.3.3.9.(1) states that "The design and installation of every piping system shall include means to accommodate expansion and contraction caused by temperature changes, movement of the soil, building shrinkage or structural settlement." This above Sentence is very broad and the requirements would vary depending on a number of factors such as; piping materials chosen, design of the piping system and the specific installation of the system. However, these requirements clearly apply to all piping in a drain, waste and vent (DWV) system. As stated in Note A-2.3.3.9.(1), expansion joints are one way to comply with the requirements of the above noted Sentence. Another consideration is the piping material chosen. As an example, Figure A-2.3.3.9. shows that cast iron pipe has a much lower linear expansion rate in comparison to ABS pipe. Building shrinkage and settlement is another important consideration to alleviate undue stress on the DWV system (including vents). For example, if a dry vent is installed in such a manner that the roof sheathing rests on the pipe in the attic, or a hole is drilled through a floor joist without sufficient space to allow for structural settlement, expansion joints may provide the best means to comply with the requirements of Sentence 2.3.3.9.(1). See attached POABC Interpretation #3072 for further guidance in regard to the installation of expansion joints. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0129 | Special Knowledge of Door Opening Mechanism | 20/07/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0129 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 20, 2021 DRAFT Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Special Knowledge of Door Opening Mechanism Keywords: Door Hardware, Exit Door Building Code Reference(s): Division 8 , Part 9; 9.9.6.7. Question: Is it acceptable to use a deadbolt lock that requires one full turn or more to open to be installed on an exit door from a single dwelling unit or a house with a secondary suite? Interpretation: Yes. The deadbolt hardware with a separate operation is allowed in a single dwelling unit or a house with a secondary suite. The hardware must be openable from inside of the unit in direction of travel to an exit without keys, special devices or specialized knowledge of the door opening mechanism. Turning the lockset one or more times is not considered to be requiring a special knowledge. Many higher-grade deadbolts use two turns to provide deeper deadbolt extraction to prevent forced entry from outside. Contrary to this, special opening devices or special knowledge is not permitted if in order to open the door one must use a key, keypad, fob, voice control or wi-fi operating hardware that does not have a thumb turn mechanism at the door. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0128 | Fuel Fired Appliances on Balconies | 20/07/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0128 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: July 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fuel Fired Appliances on Balconies Keywords: Fuel fired, appliances, balconies, rooof decks Building Code Reference(s): 3.6.1.5., 10.2.3.2.(1 )(a) & (i), 2.4.3.3. of BCFC Question: 1. Are fossil fuel fired barbeques, patio heaters and fire pits permitted on balconies and roof decks, including ones with natural gas connections? 2. If so, do the requirements of Article 3.6.1.5. regarding clearances to property lines and adjacent walls apply? Interpretation: 1. Yes (with some exceptions) Sentence 10.2.3.2.(1 ) regulates several devices, including space-heating equipment and appliances, with respect to "total energy use intensity", but this Sentence apples to "conditioned space". "Conditioned space" means any space within a building the temperature of which is controlled to limit variation in response to the exterior ambient temperature by the provision, either directly or indirectly, of heating or cooling over substantial portions of the year. Since exterior balconies and roof decks are not "conditioned spaces", the requirements of Sentence 10.2.3.2.(1) do not apply. The BCBC does not address the energy consumption of fossil fuel fired barbeques, patio heaters and fire pits permitted on balconies and roof decks. Many local fire departments consider fossil fuel fired appliances on balconies and roof decks to be a serious fire hazard, particularly in combustible buildings. NFPA's report entitled "Home Grill Fires" estimates that grills, hibachis and barbeques result in an average of 10,600 home fires per year in the USA with an average annual death total of 10 persons per year, 160 civilian injuries and $149,000,000 in direct property damage. 56% of such fires originated on exterior balconies, terraces and patios. As a result, many local fire departments discourage the use of fossil fuel appliances on balconies and roof decks. Article 2.4.3.3. of the BC Fire Code states that "Devices having open flames shall be securely supported in noncombustible holders and shall be located or protected so as to prevent accidental contact of the flame with combustible materials". Although this Article does not ban the use of fossil fuel appliances, it does provide a cautionary guidance on their use. It is good practice to have a fire extinguisher readily available in close proximity to the fossil fuel appliance. Section 2.2. of the BC Building Act provides the authority to local governments to make bylaws or other enactments with respect to conservation of energy and reduction of greenhouse gases. This means that local governments could enact bylaws to ban the use of fossil fuel appliances based on wasteful energy consumption. Designers should consult with the local authority having jurisdiction in this matter. It should be noted that the Article 10.2.2.22. of the Vancouver Building By-Law bans the use of fossil fuel fired exterior heating appliances. 2. No (with some exceptions) The requirements of the BCBC apply to equipment and appliances that are fixed in place. The BCBC does not regulate portable equipment and appliances, even those that are connected to a permanent natural gas outlet. The clearance requirements of Article 3.6. 1.5. do not apply to fossil fuel fired portable equipment and appliances, but does apply to fixed built in equipment and appliances that form part of the building. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0127 | Wall Studs Placed On the Flat | 20/07/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0127 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Wall Studs Placed On the Flat Keywords: Wall sheathing, studs on flat, supported roof length Building Code Reference(s): 9.23.10.3.(3)(a) & (b), 9.23.17.2. Question: 1. When applying Clause 9.23.10.3.(3)(a), is Table 9.23.17.2.-A used to determine the minimum wall sheathing thickness which is applied to wall studs that are placed on the flat and that support only an attic not accessible by a stairway? 2. When applying 9.23.10.3.(3)(b), is the 2.1 m width intended to be the supported length of the roof? Interpretation: 1. Yes Table 9.23.17.2.-A requires a minimum thickness of 7.5 mm for OSB, 0-2 Grade, 7.9 mm for OSB, 0-1 Grade, and Waferboard, R-1 Grade and 7.5 mm for exterior type plywood. Note that the sheathing must be attached to the studs with adhesive. 2. Yes The wood studs placed on flat as described in 9.23.10.3.(3) are permitted to support a maximum length of roof of 2.1 m. a. If there is no roof overhang, the maximum span of the roof joists or roof trusses is (2.1 X 2) = 4.2m. b. If there is a 0.6m long roof overhang, the maximum span of the roof joists or roof trusses is (2.1 - 0.6) X 2 = 3m. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0125 | Sound Transmission Rating of Door in a Fire Separation, Secondary Suites | 20/07/2021 | File No: 18-0125 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION July 20, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Sound Transmission Rating of Door in a Fire Separation, Secondary Suites Page 1 of 2 Keywords: Doors, Fire Separation, Sound Transmission Rating, Secondary suites Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.9.3., 9.10.13.2., 9.11.1 .1.(2) Question: In a house with a secondary suite, is a 45mm thick solid core wood door installed in a fire separation in accordance with Article 9.10.9.3, considered compliant for sound transmission rating when the fire separation in which the door is contained, complies with Sentence 9.11 .1.1 .(2)? Interpretation: Yes. Clause 9.10.9.3.(2)(a) permits use of a 45mm solid core wood door in a fire separation of not more than 3/4h fire resistance rating. Sentence 9.1 1.1.1.(2), which also makes reference to Sentence 9.10.3.1 .(2), requires that for a house containing a secondary suite, each dwelling unit must be separated from sound generating spaces by various options, as follows: a) construction having i) joist spaces filled with sound-absorbing material of not less than 150 mm nominal thickness, ii) stud spaces filled with sound-absorbing material, iii) resilient channel on one side of the separation spaced 400 or 600 mm o.c., and iv) not less than 12. 7 mm thick gypsum board on ceilings and on both sides of walls, or b) construction providing an STC rating of not less than 43, or c) a separating assembly and adjoining constructions, which together provide an ASTC rating of not less than 40. If Option (a) is selected, the 45mm solid core wood doors are deemed acceptable for acoustical performance. The building code does not specifically address the acoustical rating for doors. The referenced note A-9.11 .1.1.(2) indicates: "Controlling sound transmission between dwelling units is important to the occupants' health and well-being. Although this may be difficult to achieve in an existing building, it is nevertheless necessary that a minimum level of sound transmission protection be provided between the dwelling units in a house with a secondary suite. A somewhat reduced level of performance is acceptable in the case of secondary suites because the occupants of the house containing a secondary suite are only affected by the sound of one other unit and, in many cases, it is the owner of the house who will decide on the desired level of protection ..... " | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0124 | Blocking for L-shaped Grab Bar | 18/05/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0124 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Blocking for L-shaped Grab Bar Keywords: Grab Bar, Blocking Building Code Reference(s): Division B, Part 3; 3.8.5.5.(2); 3.8.3.1 1.(1 )(e) Question: For adaptable residential suites, is blocking for future L-shaped grab bar installation required on the side wall of a water closet? Interpretation: Yes (but there are other options) Subclause 3.8.3. 11 .(1 )(e)(i) clearly states that blocking is required on the side wall closest to the water closet. If there is no side wall, such as when the water closet is between the tub and the vanity, the blocking could be provided on the back wall to accommodate a future cantilevered L-shaped grab bar. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0123 | Exit Enclosure Fire Separation Services Penetrations | 15/06/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0123 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: June 15, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Exit Enclosure Fire Separation Services Penetrations Keywords: Exit, enclosure, fire separation, services penetrations Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.4.1, 3.4.4.4.(1 ), 3.1.7, 3.1.8, 3.1.9 Question: Article 3.4.4.1 requires fire separation enclosures of exits. Sentence 3.4.4.4.(1) restricts certain openings or services penetrations of enclosure assemblies of the fire separations required by Article 3.4.4.1. 1. Are building services other than those acceptable in Sentence 3.4.4.4.(1 ), permitted to be contained within the fire separation assemblies required by Article 3.4.4.1? 2. If building services are permitted to be contained within exit enclosure fire separation assemblies, are they permitted to penetrate the membrane of such fire separation assemblies on the outside face of the exit enclosure? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Building services other than those acceptable in Sentence 3.4.4.4.(1 ), are permitted to be contained within the fire separation assemblies required by Article 3.4.4.1, subject to installation in accordance with Subsections 3.1.7, 3.1 .8, and 3.1 .9. A "fire separation" is defined in Division A, Article 1.4.1.2 as "a construction assembly that acts as a barrier against the spread of fire". 2. Yes. Building services other than those acceptable in Sentence 3.4.4.4.(1 ), are permitted to penetrate the membrane of such fire separation assemblies on the outside face of the exit enclosure required by Article 3.4.4.1, subject to installation in accordance with Subsections 3.1.7, 3.1.8, and 3.1.9. A "fire separation" is defined in Division A, Article 1.4.1 .2 as "a construction assembly that acts as a barrier against the spread of fire". Examples of such services penetrations are: electrical outlet boxes located in the public corridor, manual stations, devices associated with permitted security locking systems, etc. This is consistent with past BC Building Code interpretation 06-0099. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0122 | Limiting Distance in an Area with a Volunteer Fire Department | 15/06/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0122 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: June 15, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Limiting Distance in an Area with a Volunteer Fire Department Keywords: Limiting Distance, Fire Department Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.15.3, A-3.2.3.1.(8) Questions: Is the limiting distance for spatial separation purposes required to be halved for all unsprinklered buildings in areas where there is a volunteer Fire Department? Interpretation: No, this depends on the capability of the local Fire Department. Sentence 9.10.15.3.(1) requires the limiting distance to be halved where: a) the time from receipt of notification of a fire by the fire department until the first fire department vehicle arrives at the building exceeds 1 O min in 10% or more of all calls to the building, and b) any storey in the building is not sprinklered. There is a similar requirement in Part 3, and Sentence 9.10.15.3.(1) refers to Note A- 3.2.3.1 .(8). This Note mentions that the BCBC response objective is essentially consistent with NFPA 1710, "Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments", and the Note also mentions other response objectives from NFPA 1710. NFPA 1710 is a standard for professional Fire Departments, not volunteer Fire Departments. There is no equivalent NFPA standard for volunteer Fire Departments. However, the references to NFPA 1710 are in the Note, not in Part 3 or Part 9, and therefore they are advisory only. If a volunteer Fire Department can respond so that the first Fire Department vehicle arrives at the building within 10 minutes of receipt of notification of a fire, for at least 90% of all calls to the building, the limiting distance is not required to be halved. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0121 | Wind Load for Part 9 Buildings | 21/09/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0121 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: September 21, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Wind Load for Part 9 Buildings Keywords: Wind load, Part 9 Building Code Reference(s): 1.1.3.1 .(1) & (2), 9.4. 1.1.(1) & (3), 9.4.2., 9.23.13., 9.23. 14.11 . Question: Subsection 9.4.2. does not identify wind loads as one of the required specified loads for Part 9 buildings. Does the structural design for Part 9 buildings need to address wind loads for light-frame construction as described in Sentence 9.4.2.1.(1 ). Interpretation: Yes (with some exceptions) Sentence 9.4.1.1.(1) provides 3 options for the design of structural members and their connections: a) Conform to requirements provided elsewhere in Part 9, b) Design to good engineering practice such as CWC 2014 "Engineering Guide to Wood Frame Construction", or c) Design to Part 4 using the loads, deflection and vibration limits specified in either Part 9, or Part 4 Sentence 9.4.1 .1.(3) states that location specific information for structural design, including snow and wind loads and seismic response accelerations, shall be determined according to Subsection 1.1.3. Sentence 1.1.3.1.(1) requires the use of climatic and seismic values established by the local AHJ, or in the absence of such data to use Sentence 1.1.3.1.(2) and Appendix C. This climatic data includes wind loads. If structural members are designed to the prescriptive requirements of Part 9, they are deemed to meet the requirements for wind loads. Subsection 9.4.2. for "Specified Loads" only applies to light-frame construction that meets the restrictions in Sentence 9.4.2.1.(1 ). Wind loads are not mentioned in Subsection 9.4.2., so lightframe construction that meets the restrictions in Sentence 9.4.2.1.(1) need not be designed for wind loads, except for "bracing" as required by Subsection 9.23.13. and "roof trusses" that are designed to Part 4. Subsection 9.23.13. requires "bracing" in Part 9 buildings to be designed to resist both wind and seismic forces, so light-frame construction does require such bracing to be designed for wind loads. Article 9.23.14.11. describes the prescriptive requirements for the design of roof trusses that are not designed to Part 4. If such trusses meet the requirements of 9.23.14.11. they are deemed to meet the requirements for wind load. If they do not meet the requirements of 9.23.14.11., they must be designed to Part 4 which includes wind load. The Specified Loads in Subsection 9.4.2. do not apply to structural components that are not lightframe construction. This would imply that the design loads for such components are established by Subsection 1.1.3. which includes wind loads. The Specified Loads in Subsection 9.4.2. do not apply to light-frame construction that exceed the scope of Sentence 9.4.2.1.(1 ). This would imply that the design loads for such components are established by Subsection 1 .1 .3. which includes wind loads must be designed to Part 4. It should also be noted that Sub-clause 2.2.7.1.(1 )(c)(i) of Division C requires Professional Design and Review of structural components that are not within the scope of Part 9. Structural engineers would design structural components for wind loading when they exceed the scope of Part 9. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0120 | Type of Construction for Balconies | 18/05/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0120 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Type of Construction for Balconies Keywords: Type of Construction, Noncombustible, Combustible Building Code Reference(s): Division B, Part 3; 3.2.2. 11 .(1 ); 3.2.2.20. to 3.2.2.90. Question: Is there a requirement for an exterior balcony to have a fire resistance rating if there is no floor area beneath the balcony? Interpretation: No. Exterior balconies do not have to have a fire resistance rating. Article 3.2.2.11. states that the type of construction must be determined by Articles 3.2.2.20. to 3.2.2.90. Type of construction is a term used in the code to determine if the materials are combustible or noncombustible. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0119 | Determination of Fire Resistance Ratings | 15/06/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0119 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: June 15, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Determination of Fire Resistance Ratings Keywords: Fire resistance rating, ceiling assembly, ceiling membrane Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.7.1.(1 )(, (2), (3) and (4) Question: Sentences 3.1.7.1.(3) & (4) are exceptions to Sentences 3.1.7.1.(1) & (2). Should the wording of Sentences 3.1.7.1.(1) & (2) be revised to acknowledge these 2 exceptions? Interpretation: Yes The BCBC Interpretation Committee has recommended to the Building and Safety Standards Branch that the wording of Sentences 3.1.7.1.(1) & (2) be revised as follows: 3.1.7.1.(1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2), (3) and (4), and Articles 3.1.7.2. and 3.6.3.5 ... . 3.1.7.1 .(2) Except as permitted by Sentences (3) and (4), a material | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0118 | Guards with Flexible Pickets or Horizontal Rails | 18/05/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0118 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Guards with Flexible Pickets or Horizontal Rails Keywords: Guards, Openings in Guards Building Code Reference(s): Division B, Part 9; 9.8.8.2.; 9.8.8.5., 9.8.8.6.; Table 9.8.8.2. Question: Clause 9.8.8.5.(3)(a) requires that openings through guards must prevent the passage of a spherical object of 100 mm diameter. Is there a limit of applied force to resist this test? Interpretation: No (with provisions) Table 9.8.8.2. requires the pickets to withstand a horizontal load of 0.SkN applied over area of 100 mm by 100 mm in an outward direction on the guard (i.e. perpendicular to the guard). There is no requirement in Table 9.8.8.2. to apply a load on the picket in opposite directions in the plane of the guard. This prescriptive requirement only applies to buildings subject to Part 4. Due to the silence in Table 9.8.8.2., the Part 9 guard may not meet the performance requirements of Clause 9.8.8.5.(3)(a) to prevent the passage of a sphere having a diameter of 100 mm through the guard. It is considered good design practice to use the requirements of Sentence 4.1.5.14.(4) of Part 4 for the in-plane forces on vertical pickets. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0117 | Intermediate Handrails | 15/06/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0117 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: June 15, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Intermediate Handrails Keywords: Intermediate, handrails, stairs Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.14.(1 ), 3.4.3.2.(8), Table 3.4.3.2.A., 3.4.3.3.(4), 3.4.6.5.(3), 3.4.6.5.(4) Question: 1. For an exit stair that seNes more than 2 storeys, in a building that does not contain Group B Division 2 or 3, is 1700 mm the maximum permitted width of an exit stair without an intermediate handrail? 2. For a very wide stair that seNes as an exit, are handrails required at each side of the stair plus 1 intermediate handrail? 3. For a very wide stair that does not seNe as an exit, are handrails required at each side of the stair with no intermediate handrail? 4. If an exit stair has an intermediate handrail, does the width of the handrail have to be deducted from the exit width when calculating the exit capacity of the stair? Interpretation: 1. Yes 3.4.3.2.(8) and Table 3.4.3.2.A. requires the minimum width of an exit stair to be 1100 mm. 3.4.3.3.(4) permits handrails and construction below handrails to encroach up to 100 mm on each side of the means of egress. 3.4.6.5.(3)(a) requires a handrail to be reachable within 750 mm from all portions of the "required" exit width. It is interpretated that "reachable" is measured from the centerline of a person's body to the closest portion of the handrail. So the maximum width of an exit stair without an intermediate handrails is determined as: 2 x (750 mm maximum distance to handrail+ 100 mm handrail encroachment)= 1700 mm Refer to illustration on Page 2. 2. Yes (with conditions) 3.4.6.5.(3)(a) requires a handrail to be reachable within 750 mm from all portions of the "required" exit width. Except as required by 3.4.6.5.(4), if the "required" exit width is not more than 1700 mm, the stair could be served by handrails on both sides plus one intermediate handrail with the clear dimension between handrails not exceeding 1500 mm. 3.4.6.5.(4) requires the handrails to be located on the most direct path of travel from the exit. If the direct path of travel does not coincide with one of the 2 sides of the wide stair, then 2 intermediate handrails would be required. The minimum clear distance between these 2 intermediate handrails would be the "required" exit width minus 2 x 100 mm for handrail encroachment. If the "required" exit width exceeds 1700 mm, additional intermediate handrails would be required to suit. 3. Yes 3.3.1.14.(1) requires stairs that do not serve as exits be designed to the requirements of 3.4.3.2.(8), 3.2.3.4. and 3.4.6.1. to 3.4.6.9. This includes the requirement for handrails as described in 3.4.6.5. 3.4.6.5.{2)(a) requires handrails on each side of the stair. A stair that does not served as an exit, does not have any "required" exit width. Since 3.4.6.5.(3)(a) only requires intermediate handrails to be reachable from all potions of the "required" exit width, intermediate handrails are not required for wide stairs that do not serve as exits. 4. No 3.4.3.3.(4) permits handrails and construction below handrails to encroach up to 100 mm on each side of the means of egress. This provision would apply to intermediate handrails as well as the handrails on each side of the stair. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0116 | Mechanical Ventilation in a Dwelling Unit Undergoing Renovations | 15/06/2021 | File No: 18-0116 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Questions: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 June 15, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Mechanical Ventilation in a Dwelling Unit Undergoing Renovations Ventilation, Renovation 9.32.3, Division A 1.1 .1 .2.(1) 1. Do the requirements for heating season mechanical ventilation apply to the creation of a new bedroom within an existing single family dwelling unit that was constructed prior to the BCBC requirements for mechanical ventilation? 2. Do the requirements for heating season mechanical ventilation apply to the creation of, or legalization of, a secondary suite in a single family dwelling unit that was constructed prior to the BCBC requirements for mechanical ventilation? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Division B Part 9 of the BCBC does not provide any guidance for upgrading of existing dwelling units that are renovated. However, Division A Sentence 1.1.1.2.(1) states: "Where a building is altered, rehabilitated, renovated or repaired, or there is a change in occupancy, the level of life safety and building performance shall not be decreased below a level that already exists." The creation of a new bedroom can be assumed to increase the number of people sleeping in the dwelling unit. This would be a reduction in building performance because more people would be exposed to the existing non-conforming conditions. It may be impossible or impractical for an existing building to comply with all of the heating season ventilation requirements of the current BCBC. The Notes to Division A Sentence 1.1.1.2.(1 ) of the BCBC state: "The successful application of Code requirements to existing construction becomes a matter of balancing the cost of implementing a requirement with the relative importance of that requirement to the overall Code objectives. The degree to which any particular requirement can be relaxed without affecting the intended level of safety of the Code requires considerable judgment on the part of both the designer and the authority having jurisdiction." The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted with respect to determining an acceptable level of upgrading. 2. Yes. The rationale noted above for a new bedroom also applies to a new or newly legalized secondary suite. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0115 | Sizing of Principal Mechanical Exhaust Fan for a Dwelling Unit | 15/06/2021 | File No: 18-0115 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 June 15, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Sizing of Principal Mechanical Exhaust Fan for a Dwelling Unit Ventilation, Exhaust, Heating Season 9.32.2.1., 9.32.3 If an exhaust fan is sized based on non-heating-season ventilation, can the same sizing be used for heating-season ventilation? Interpretation: No. Sentence 9.32.2.1.(1) requires natural or mechanical non-heating-season ventilation in rooms or spaces in dwelling units. Where mechanical ventilation is used, the system is required to supply or exhaust air at a minimum rate of half an air change per hour if the room or space is mechanically cooled, or one air change per hour if is not mechanically cooled. Sentence 9.32.3.1.(1) requires heating-season mechanical ventilation in every dwelling unit that has electrical power. Sentence 9.32.3.3.(1) requires this system to include an exhaust fan that conforms with Article 9.32.3.5, which includes Table 9.32.3.5. The heating system exhaust fan required by Article 9.32.3.5 is the principal exhaust fan in a dwelling unit, and it is required to run continuously. The required volume sizing for this fan is based on the area served and on the number of bedrooms. This is a different sizing method than the non-heating-season exhaust fan, which is sized based on air changes per hour. The fan size calculation must be done using both methods, and the larger calculated size will determine the required fan capacity. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0114 | Secondary Suite Second Means of Egress via Window | 20/07/2021 | File No: 18-0114 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: July 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Secondary Suite Second Means of Egress via Window Keywords: Secondary suite, means of egress, window Building Code Reference(s): 9.9.9. 1.(2), 9.9.9.2.(2), 9.9.9.3.(2) & (3), 9.9. 10.1 Question: With respect to means of egress from a basement secondary suite which is part of a single family dwelling: 1. Can a window with unobstructed opening not less than 1 m high and 0.55m wide, located so that the si ll is not more than 1 m above the floor; be used as the required second means of egress for the basement secondary suite, which is served by an egress door opening into exterior means of egress? 2. If the answer to question 1. is yes, are there any restrictions as to where the window can be located in relation to the egress door? In other words, is it intended that the window used for escape be located away from the egress door such as in at a bedroom, or can it be located close to the required egress door? Interpretation: 1. Yes. For an unsprinklered building, Sentence 9.9.9.2.(2) permits using an openable window sized and located in accordance with Clauses 9.9.9.1.(2)(a) and (b), to be used as a second and separate means of escape where it may not be possible to go in more than one direction from where the egress door opens onto an exterior means of egress (dead end condition). Such escape windows must be provided for each storey of each unit. If the building is sprinklered, the building code does not require the ability to go in more than one direction to an exit from the location where the egress door opens onto a public corridor or exterior passageway (dead end condition). In this case the windows used for escape are not required. Sentence 9.9.9.3.(2) requires that in a house with a secondary suite, if a dwelling unit is located above another dwelling unit or common space, the upper dwelling unit must be provided with a second and separate means of egress where an egress door from that dwelling unit opens onto an exterior passageway, that a) has a floor assembly with a fire-resistance rating less than 45 min, b) is served by a single exit stairway or ramp, and c) is located more than 1.5 m above adjacent ground level. Shared interior exits must be enclosed in accordance with Sentence 9.9.4.2.(2). Shared exterior exits must be protected for exit exposure protection in accordance with Subclause 9.9.4.4.( 1 )(a)(ii). 2. No. Where a window designed in accordance with Clauses 9.9.9. 1.{2)(a) and (b) is used as an escape window in accordance with Sentence 9.9.9.2.(2) in an unsprinklered building, there are no restrictions on the location of the window in relation to the egress door to the unit. However, considering that the window is intended to be a second means of escape, it is good design practice for the window to be remotely located from the egress door. Article 9.9.10.1 requires that if the unit is unsprinklered, each bedroom must have one outside window or exterior door to be used for escape. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0113 | Emergency Power for Fire Pump | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0113 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Emergency Power for Fire Pump Keywords: Emergency power, fire pump, separate electrical feed Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.5.7.(1) & (2), 3.2.7.9.(1 )(b), Question: If a building requires a fire pump to provide an adequate water supply for firefighting, and the pump is an electric fire pump with a separate dedicated electrical service from the local utility provider, is an emergency generator required to provide power in the event of a power failure? Interpretation: Yes Clause 3.2.7.9.(1 )(b) requires an emergency power supply be provided by an emergency generator capable of operating under full load for not less than 2 hours for water supply for firefighting as required by Article 3.2.5.7., if the water supply is dependent upon electrical power provided to the "building". It is interpreted that the fire pump is an integral part of the "building", so even though the electrical power to the fire pump is a separate service from the electrical service for the remainder of the building, this separate service is still electrical power provided to the "building". | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0112 | Framing between Main Dwelling Unit and Secondary Suite | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0112 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Framing between Main Dwelling Unit and Secondary Suite Keywords: Wall framing, floor/cei ling assemblies, wood studs Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.3. 1.(3)(a) Question: When a minimum fire resistance rating of 30 minutes is permitted between a main dwelling unit and a secondary suite, Clause 9.10.3.1.(3)(a) permits the construction to be "walls and floor/ceiling assemblies with wood studs". 1. Is the term "wood studs" intended to apply to both the wall assemblies and floor/ceiling assemblies? 2. Can the floor/ceiling assemblies be constructed with engineered wood I-joists? Interpretation: 1. No The term "wall studs" is intended to apply to the wall assemblies only. It is not the intent to restrict the construction of the floor/ceiling assemblies to conventional wood framing such as 2 x 1 O wood joists. 2. Yes Engineered wood I-joists are an acceptable form of construction for the fire separation between a main dwelling unit and a secondary suite provided that all other provisions in Sentence 9.10.3.1.(3) are met. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0111 | Protection of Structural Wood Elements from Moisture and Decay | 18/05/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0111 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Protection of Structural Wood Elements from Moisture and Decay Keywords: Structural, wood, moisture, decay, protection Building Code Reference(s): 9.3.2.9.(3)(b) Question: An exterior rectangular deck with solid floor surface, is constructed in a community with a moisture index greater than 1.0 per Table C-2 in Appendix C of Division B. There is constant rain and wind exposure. This deck is structurally supported by beams, and posts which rest on saddle plates. There are asphalt shingles between the saddle plates and support posts. Most of the posts are located at the perimeter of the deck. The wood posts are not pressure-treated with preservative to resist decay. Will this comply with Clause 9.3.2.9.(3)(b)? Interpretation: No, unless moisture accumulation is adequately prevented. Clause 9.3.2.9.(3)(b) requires structural wood elements to be pressure-treated with a preservative to resist decay, where: i) the wood elements are not protected from exposure to precipitation, ii) the configuration is conducive to moisture accumulation, and iii) the moisture index is greater than 1 .00. The Notes to Part 9, A-9.3.2.9.(3) Protection of Structural Wood Elements from Moisture and Decay, indicates: "There are many above-ground, structural wood systems where precipitation is readily trapped or drying is slow, creating conditions conducive to decay. Beams extending beyond roof decks, junctions between deck members, and connections between balcony guards and walls are three examples of elements that can accumulate water when exposed to precipitation if they are not detailed to al low drainage." In this case if the support posts are not pressure-treated with preservative to resist decay, it needs to be demonstrated that measures and detailing (such as at the saddle plates and other junctions) will provide effective drainage, and moisture from precipitation will not accumulate. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0110 | One Trap Serving Multiple Fixtures | 15/06/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0110 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: June 15, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: One Trap Serving Multiple Fixtures Keywords: Trap, Fixtures, Continuous Waste Building Code Reference(s): 2.4.5.1.(2), 2.4.5.1.(3), 2.4.8.2.(1 ), Note A-2.4.5.1.(2) & (3), 2.6. 1.7.(1 0)(c) Question: Can the trap for a kitchen sink be used as a continuous waste for the connection of a pan drain serving a hot water tank? Interpretation: No, Sentences 2.4.5.1.(2) and (3) provide exceptions to Sentence 2.4.5.1.(1) which states that fixtures shall be protected by a separate trap. The situations mentioned in both of these Sentences are well illustrated in the Notes A-2.4.5.1.(2) and (3). In addition, Sentence 2.4.8.2.(1) limits the developed length of the fixture outlet pipe to 1200 mm. A number of Authorities Having Jurisdiction may accept the use of a single trap to protect a lavatory and hot water tank pan drain in certain circumstances. The most common application that this may be permissible is in the case of a multi-unit commercial occupancy where the plumbing is located in a remote location. One of the considerations is that the lavatory and pan drain only discharge waste that is predominantly clear. This is not the same condition as would be present with a food preparation sink in a kitchen or lunch room. This situation may be deemed as an acceptable location in conformance with Clause 2.6. 1.7.(1 0)(c). This Interpretation is consistent with POABC Interpretation #4106 (attached). Another option is to connect the hot water tank pan drain indirectly to the fixture outlet pipe which is consistent with BCBCIC Interpretation #98-01 14 (attached). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0109 | Cleanout for a 2" Wet Vent Serving a Bathroom Group | 15/06/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0109 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: June 15, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book 11: Pl umbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Cleanout for a 2" Wet Vent Serving a Bathroom Group Keywords: Cleanout, Wet Vent, Bathroom Group Building Code Reference(s): 2.4.7.1., 2.4.7.4. Question: Can a 2" sanitary tee, installed to connect the trap arm / fixture drain of the lavatory, be used as the cleanout for a bathroom group? Interpretation: Yes, as long as it is installed in such a manner as to meet the following conditions; • The sanitary tee is installed to come straight out of the wall, i.e., it is not turned sideways in the wall cavity necessitating the installation of a fitting (a 45 or 90 degree elbow for example) to direct the trap / arm fixture drain back out of the wall. This is a requirement as access must be provided to the portion of the continuous vent up to the flood level rim of the lavatory, • In the case of a wall which is a fire separation having a fire resistance rating, the entire portion of the 2" connection for the trap arm / fixture drain of the lavatory is outside of the drywall and is rem ova bl e at this point. This is necessary to maintain the integrity of the fire separation, when this portion of the trap arm / fixture drain is serving as the cleanout, and it is used for maintenance purposes. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0108 | Fire Protection of Structural Steel in a Fire Separation | 18/05/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0108 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 lnterpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire Protection of Structural Steel in a Fire Separation Keywords: Fire-Resistance Rating, Fire Separation Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.7.1.(1), 3.1.8.1.(1) Question: Where a structural steel member with sprayed fire protection material is in the plane of a fire separation, with the steel member and the fire separation requiring the same fireresistance rating, can the steel member be considered as part of the fire separation? For example, if a fire-sprayed steel beam is located at the top of a framed wall and is parallel to the wall, can the beam maintain the continuity of the fire separation? lnterpretation: No, unless the steel member has been tested as part of the fire separation, including the temperature rise requirements. The fire-resistance rating of fire separations is determined in accordance with CAN/ULCS101 "Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and Materials". For a non-loadbearing fire separation, the failure criteria related to temperature rise on the unexposed surface are a maximum spot temperature rise of 180 °C and maximum average temperature rise of 140 oc. For a loadbearing structural steel member such as a beam exposed to the floor area, the failure during fire testing is typically determined by structural failure. This generally occurs when the steel has lost at least 40% of its initial strength, typically when the steel has reached a temperature of at least 550 °C. For the example of a beam with sprayed fire protection material, the sprayed material would have been tested to limit the temperature rise of the steel and thereby delay its structural failure. However, the structural failure temperature of the steel is much higher than the failure temperature on the unexposed side of the fire separation under the beam. If the beam is at the top of a fire separation wall, only one side of the beam would be exposed to a fire. If the beam is sprayed on all sides, the higher temperature at the steel would not be the same as the temperature on the unexposed side of the sprayed material on the steel. However, unless the sprayed beam has been tested as part of the fire separation, it cou Id not be confirmed that this temperature rise complied with the criteria for a fire separation. Alternatively, subject to agreement with the authority having jurisdiction, it may be possible to conduct a heat transfer analysis to estimate the temperature on the unexposed side of the sprayed material on the beam. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0107 | Waiver of Fire & Smoke Dampers | 20/07/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0107 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Waiver of Fire & Smoke Dampers Keywords: smoke dampers, fire dampers, supply ducts Building Code Reference(s): 3.1 .8.8.(2)(a)(i), 3.1.8.9.(2}(a)(i) Question: Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.9.(2)(a}(i} waive the requirement for fire dampers and smoke dampers respectively when all the following conditions are met: 1. The ducts are noncombustible with a melting point above 760° C. 2. The ducts are branch lines. 3. The ducts penetrate a fire separation. 4. The ducts have a cross sectional area of not more than 0.013 m2. 5. The ducts serve only air-conditioning units or combined air-conditioning and heating units. 6. The ducts discharge air not more than 1.2 m. above the floor. Is it the intent that the location of the penetration through the vertical fire separation coincide with the location of the air discharge louvre? Interpretation: No Subclauses 3.1.8.8. (2)(a)(i) and 3.1 .8.9.(2)(a)(i) do not stipulate where the air discharge louvres are in relationship to the penetration of the vertical fire separation. Since the supply ducts are so small and the air discharge louvres are located low on the wall, the risk of fire and smoke migration into the vertical duct shaft is relatively low. It should be noted that it is critical to avoid other entry points for fire and smoke into the branch ducts, so all joints in the branch duct network must be carefully sealed to prevent smoke infiltration. The perimeter of the duct penetration through the vertical fire separation must be firestopped. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0106 | Heating and Insulation of Crawl Space | 16/03/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0106 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Heating and Insulation of Crawl space Keywords: Crawl space, floor on ground, Building Code Reference(s): 9. 16. 1.3.(1), 9.18.1.1.(1), 9.36.2.1., 9.36.2.8.(4) Question: Where a heated crawl space under a main floor of a single-family dwelling has been provided with a floor on ground and where a portion of this floor on ground exists above the frost line due to sloping exterior grade (see sketch) does this floor on ground of the crawlspace require slab insulation in the same fashion as a slab on grade? Interpretation: Yes Sentence 9.18.1. 1.(1) defines crawl space as having exterior walls less than 25% of their total area above exterior ground level open to the outdoors. The heated crawl space shown on the sketch has more than 25% of the exterior walls above exterior ground level so it cannot be considered as crawl space. It shall comply with all the requirements for heating and insulation as a slab on grade as per Sections 9.25, 9.33 and 9.36. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0105 | Fire Separation of the Second Storey in a Building Constructed to Article 3.2.2.79 | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0105 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2023-10-24 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire Separation of the Second Storey in a Building Constructed to Article 3.2.2.79 Keywords: Exit, Fire Separation Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.3.1, Table 3.1.8.4, 3.1.9.1.(1), 3.3.1.1., 3.2.2.79, 3.2.8.1.(1)(a) Questions: 1. A two storey noncombustible sprinklered building will be constructed to comply with Article 3.2.2.79 (Group F, Division 2, up to 2 Storeys, Sprinklered). The first storey has a high ceiling with the area of the second storey being smaller than the first storey. Are the floor assembly of the second storey and the walls separating the second storey from the high ceiling space of the first storey required to have a fire-resistance rating? 2. What rating is required for the firestopping at penetrations through the fire separations referenced in question 1? Interpretation: 1. No, if the same tenant occupies the first and second storeys. Article 3.2.2.79 allows combustible or noncombustible construction, and requires sprinklering. Floor assemblies are required to be fire separations and they require a 45 min fire-resistance rating if they are of combustible construction. There is no requirement for a fire-resistance rating for floor assemblies that are of noncombustible construction. Therefore, the second storey floor assembly, and the walls that separate the second storey from the high ceiling area of the first storey, are permitted to be 0 h fire separations where they are of noncombustible construction. These storeys are not considered to be interconnected, because the interconnected floor space requirements referenced by Clause 3.2.8.1.(1)(a) are not applicable to a floor area that terminates at a continuous ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2023-10-24 vertical fire separation with the same fire-resistance rating as required for the floor fire separation (0 h, in this case). However, if the first and second storeys are occupied by different tenants, such that they are different suites as defined in the BCBC, Article 3.3.1.1 requires a 45 min fire separation between suites with some exceptions as stated in that Article. This would apply to the second storey floor assembly and the walls separating the second storey from the high ceiling area of the first storey. In addition, if the first storey and second storey are different major occupancies, Article 3.1.3.1 and Table 3.1.3.1 of the BCBC may require greater fire-resistance ratings for the fire separations between storeys. 2. The F rating for the firestopping depends on the fire-resistance rating of the fire separation. If the required fire-resistance rating of the separation between storeys is 0 h as stated in the response to question 1, penetrations through the separations are required to be sealed but do not require a firestopping system with an F rating. If the fire separations require a fire-resistance rating of 45 min or more as stated in the response to question 1, the F rating of the firestopping is required to comply with the rating for closures in Table 3.1.8.4, as stated in Sentence 3.1.9.1.(1). The firestopping in this location is unlikely to also require a T rating. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0104 | Spray Foam Insulation as Alternate to Roof Venting | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0104 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Spray Foam Insulation as Alternate to Roof Venting Keywords: Spray foam insulation, roof venting Building Code Reference(s): 9. 19.1.1., A-9.19. 1.1 Question: Sentence 9. 19.1.1.(1) requires that where insulation is installed between a ceiling and the underside of roof sheathing (roof space), vents and unobstructed air space between insulation and roof sheathing, must be provided to permit effective transfer of moisture from the roof space to the exterior; except where it can be shown to be unnecessary. Can spray foam insulation applied directly to the underside of roof sheathing be an acceptable alternate to providing the vents and unobstructed air space required by Sentence 9.19. 1.1.(1 )? Interpretation: Yes, under certain situations. The Notes to Part 9 commentary A-9.19.1.1.(1) indicates that the exception in Sentence 9.19.1.1.(1) recognizes that some specialized ceiling-roof assemblies such as those used in some factory-built buildings, have, over time, demonstrated that their construction is sufficiently tight to prevent excessive moisture accumulation. Any use of spray foam insulation applied directly to the underside of roof sheathing proposed as an alternate to required vents and unobstructed air space, must similarly be able to demonstrate performance that the system will not lead to deterioration of the roof assembly. This proposal submission is subject to review and acceptance by the Authority having Jurisdiction. This interpretation is supported by past BC Building Code appeals 1719, 1741 , and 1762. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0103 | Waterproof Finishes at Stand-alone Bathtub | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0103 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Waterproof Finishes at Stand-alone Bathtub Keywords: Bathtub, waterproof finishes, walls, floors Building Code Reference(s): 9.29.2.1.(1), 9.30.1.2.(1 ), A-9.30.1.2.(1) Question: For stand-alone bathtubs (not physically positioned immediately against or attached to adjoining walls), what are the waterproofing requirements for: 1) Walls, 2) Floors? Interpretation: 1. Sentence 9.29.2.1.(1) sets out minimum dimensions for adjoining wall finishes to be waterproofed, where the bathtub is immediately against adjoining walls. In the case of a bathtub without any shower, the minimum extent of waterproof finish required above the bathtub rim is 400mm; and for a bathtub provided with a shower, 1.2m above the bathtub rim. This gives some guidance as to minimum clearances that should be provided for stand-alone bathtubs if no waterproof finish is contemplated for the walls in the vicinity. In other words, if the bathtub has no shower and is positioned at least 400mm horizontally away from the wall, there should be an acceptable reduced level of risk of water posing a threat to the deterioration of the wall finishes or structure. This clearance should be increased to at least 1.2m horizontally if a shower is provided. However, since specific layouts, designs, and fixture specifications differ, judgement and prudence must be exercised for each specific situation to ensure the integrity and durability of walls in the vicinity are adequately protected. 2. Sentence 9.30.1 .2.(1) and related Notes commentary A-9.30.1.2.(1) addresses the expected performance of floors such as in bathrooms, susceptible to the presence of water escaping from use of showers or bathtubs. Measures are set out to prevent deterioration of finishes or supporting floor assemblies. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0102 | Calculating Effective Thermal Resistance | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0102 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Calculating Effective Thermal Resistance Keywords: Effective, thermal resistance Building Code Reference(s): 9.36.2.4.(1 ), A-9.36.2.4.(1) Question: The formula for calculating the Effective Thermal Resistance of a Wood-frame Assembly in A- 9.36.2.4.(1) yields results that are different than might be expected. If a wall has 50% framing area with RSIF = 1 and 50% cavity area with RSlc = 5, the logical expected RSle11 would be the average of 1 and 5 which would be RSle11 = 3. Using the formula in A-9.36.2.4.(1) the result is RSI = 1.667. Is there something wrong with the formula? Interpretation: No The relationship between RSIF and RS le is not linear when calculating the effective thermal resistance. If 50% of the wall is solid wood framing, the thermal bridging has a much more significant impact on the effective thermal resistance which results in a much lower effective RSI. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0101 | Maximum Size Increase for Trap and Trap Arm | 16/02/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0101 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: February 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Maximum Size Increase for Trap and Trap Arm Keywords: Trap, Trap Arm, Size Building Code Reference(s): 2.4.9.3., Table 2.4.9.3. Question: What is the maximum size permitted for a trap and trap arm serving a fixture, such as a bathtub, with an 1½" fixture outlet pipe? Interpretation: The 2018 British Columbia Plumbing Code (BCPC) contains no provisions which limit the increase in size for a given fixture outlet pipe in Table 2.4.9.3. In the 1992 BCPC, Sentence 4.9.3.(4) limited the increase in size to one pipe size. This means a bathtub could have had a maximum 2" trap and trap arm. One of the reasons for this provision is to ensure the pipes in the drainage system are self-scouring. This requirement has since been deleted from subsequent BCPC editions with the move to objective based Codes. Given the above statement, discretion should be used when deciding on an increase in size of any drainage pipe and the possible negative impacts of this action on the performance of a drainage system. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0100 | Fire Separation of Rooftop Exit Enclosures | 18/05/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0100 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 lnterpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire Separation of Rooftop Exit Enclosures Keywords: Exit, Fire Separation Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.7.3.(3), 3.2.1.1.(1 ), 3.4.4.1.(1) Question: Are the exterior walls of an exit stair enclosure at an occupied roof required to be constructed as fire separations? lnterpretation: No, provided the roof has no adjoining enclosures, and provided there are no applicable spatial separation conditions that would fire-resistance ratings for stair exterior walls. Sentence 3.4.4.1.(1) requires an exit to be separated from the remainder of the building by a fire separation with a minimum fire-resistance rating not less 45 min and at least equal to the separation required by Subsection 3.2.2 for the floor assembly above the storey, or for the floor assembly below the storey if there is no floor assembly above. Sentence 3.2.1.1.(1) states that a rooftop enclosure for a stairway used for no purpose other than access or egress shall not be considered as a storey. Since an exit stair enclosure at a roof would be used for no purpose other than access or egress, it would not be considered as a storey. If there are no other rooftop enclosures that would be considered as a storey, the references in Sentence 3.4.4.1. (1) to the floor assemblies above or below the storey are not applicable to an exit stair at a roof. However, the minimum required exit fire separation of 45 min is not specifically related to the floor assembly above or below the storey. The intent of an exit tire separation is to protect the exit from a fire in the building, but an open rooftop is an exterior area of a building. The walls of the rooftop exit stair would be exterior walls, and Sentence 3.1.7.3.(3) states "Exterior walls shall be rated for exposure to tire from inside the building". Constructing exit stair exterior walls as tire separations rated from inside the exit would provide minimal protection to the exit. Therefore, it is interpreted that exit stair exterior walls at a roof are not required to be tire separations. This is applicable regardless of whether the roof is occupied or unoccupied, where the roof is not considered to be a storey. Note that this interpretation addresses only the exterior walls of a rooftop exit stair. The discussion above does not apply to a rooftop exit stair wall that is not an exterior wall, such as between the exit stair and a rooftop service room. A rooftop service room is not required to be considered as a storey i n calculating building height, as stated i n BCBC Sentence 3.2.1.1. (1 ). However, if such a room has a common wall with a rooftop exit stair, the required exit fire separation must be provided between the exit stair and the service room. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0099 | Fire Blocking in a Lowered Ceiling | 16/02/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0099 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: February 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire blocking in a lowered ceiling Keywords: Fire blocking, compartmentation, fire separations, concealed spaces Building Code Reference(s): Division B, 9.10.16.1., 3.1.9., 3.1.11. Question: Is fire blocking required in a drop ceiling in a single family home that does not have any fire separations? Interpretation: Yes under certain conditions. Fire blocking is required to compartmentalize concealed spaces such as ceiling spaces, attics, and between wall and floor assemblies. The intent of these provisions is to limit the potential for fire to grow in spaces that are unoccupied which contain combustible material and do not have detection or sprinklers. The requirements for fire blocking in a lowered ceiling are based on the size of the compartment not on the presence of fire separations. The size limitations of a lowered ceiling space is prescribed in Sentences 9.10.16.1.(5) and (6) and outlined below: 9.10.16.1. 5) Unsprinklered concealed spaces of combustible construction created by a ceiling, roof space or unoccupied attic space shall be separated by fire blocks into compartments a) not more than 60 m in greatest dimension , and b) where such space contains exposed construction materials having a surface flame -spread rating greater than 25, not more than 300 m in area. 6) No dimension of the concealed space described in Clause (5 )(b) shall exceed 20 m. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0098 | Mezzanine Area, Stair Opening, Layout of Open Horizontal Plane, Visual Access | 16/02/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0098 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: February 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Mezzanine area, stair opening, layout of open horizontal plane, visual access Keywords: Mezzanine, area, stair opening, open horizontal plane layout, visual access Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.1.1.(3) Question: 1. In calculating the area of a mezzanine, should the opening for the stairs serving the mezzanine be excluded? 2. Are there any restrictions in the layout of the required open horizontal plane adjoining a mezzanine. For example, with an L shaped open horizontal plane layout, some parts of the open horizontal plane may not be visually open to view from the mezzanine. Interpretation: 1. Yes. Clause 3.2.1.1.(3)(a) requires that not less than 60% of the horizontal plane separating the mezzanine from the room or floor space in which it is located is open. The opening for the stairs leading up the mezzanine should be included in this 60% open area. In other words, the area of the stair opening is excluded from the 40% of the horizontal plane permitted for the mezzanine area, subject to the restrictions on visual obstructions in Clause 3.2.1.1.(3)(b) and Sentence 3.2.1.1.(7). 2. No. Clause 3.2.1.1.(3)(a) requires that not less than 60% of the horizontal plane separating the mezzanine from the room or floor space in which it is located is open. There are no prescribed requirements for the layout of the horizontal plane. There are however performance expectations for the open horizontal plane. The Notes to Part 3, A-3.2.1.1.(3) indicates: "The space on the floor beyond the mezzanine, i.e. below the open portion of the horizontal plane, should, with discretion, be visually open to view from the mezzanine." | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0097 | Site Grading for Surface Drainage | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0097 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 (revised) Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Site Grading for Surface Drainage Keywords: Site grading, surface drainage Building Code Reference(s): 9.14.6.1.(1 ), 9.1 6.3.3.(1 ), 5.6. 1.1., 5.7.1.2. Question: 1. For a building that is regulated by Part 9, can a slab on grade covered patio that is open to the elements on at least one side be sloped toward the building? 2. For a building that is regulated by Part 3, can a slab on grade covered patio that is open to the elements on at least one side be sloped toward the building? Interpretation: 1. No Article 1.3.3.3. of Division A describes the types of buildings that can be designed to Part 9. Sentence 9.14.6.1.(1) requires that a building be located, or the building site graded so that water will not accumulate at or near the building. This prescriptive requirement mandates the patio to slope away from the building because it could be subjected to surface water from driving rain. Sentence 9.14.6.1.(1) provides only 2 options for preventing the accumulation of surface water against the building: • building location, or • site grading For a Part 9 building the patio must slope away from the building. 2. No (with some exceptions) Article 1.3.3.2. of Division A describes the types of buildings that must be designed to Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6. Sentence 5.6.1.1.(1) states that where a building component or assembly is exposed to precipitation, the component or assembly shall: (a) Minimize ingress of precipitation into the component or assembly, and (b) Prevent ingress of precipitation into interior space. Article 5.7.1.2. states that: 1) The building shall be located, the building site shall be graded, or water shall be directed away from building assemblies so as to prevent or accommodate the accumulation of surface water against the building or adjacent buildings. 2) Drainage shall be provided to direct water away from assemblies separating interior space from the ground, except a) where the assembly is designed in accordance with Subsection 5.7.2. to withstand continuous hydrostatic pressure, or b) where it can be shown that the lack of drainage will not adversely affect i) the health or safety of building users, ii) the intended use of the building, or iii) the operation of building services. Sentence 5.7.1.2.(1) provides 3 options for preventing the accumulation of surface water against the building: • building location, • site grading, or • directing water away from the building For a Part 3 building it is best practice to slope the patio away from the building, but it is possible to meet the requirements of Sentence 5. 7.1.2.(1) by using a drainage system that directs the water away from building assemblies to prevent or accommodate the accumulation of surface water against the building or adjacent buildings. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0096 | Calculating the Hydraulic Load From Roofs with an Adjoining Vertical Surface | 20/04/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0096 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: April 20, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Calculating the Hydraulic Load From Roofs with an Adjoining Vertical Surface Keywords: Roof, Hydraulic Load, Litres Building Code Reference(s): 2.4.10.4.(1 ), Figure A-2.4.10.-8, Figure A-2.4. 10.-C Question: Where a project consists of multiple buildings located on a podium, when calculating the hydraulic load on the area drains located on the podium would one-half the area of the largest adjoining vertical surface need to be considered, i.e., the building's vertical walls? Interpretation: No. The situation described above can be quite common with multiple buildings located above a common parking structure. The need to include the hydraulic load from adjoining vertical surfaces could be onerous considering that these buildings could be high-rise structures of considerable height. Figure A-2.4.10.-B illustrates how the hydraulic load for a storm drainage system is calculated when there are adjoining vertical surfaces on a roof which need to be considered. There may be situations which are very similar to Figure A-2.4.10.-B, such as where the podium slab is stepped, and these adjoining vertical surfaces should be accounted for when calculating the hydraulic load drained to the storm drainage system. However, it would be unreasonable to include adjoining vertical surfaces of a building given the irregular pattern of the building face. When calculating the hydraulic load on the roof of a building one-half the area of the largest adjoining vertical surface would need to be added to the hydraulic load when sizing the roof drains draining to a leader (as shown in Figure A-2.4.10.-C). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0095 | Hold-Open Devices | 16/02/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0095 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: February 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Hold-Open Devices Keywords: Hold-open, fusible link Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.8.14.(5) Question: Can a hold open device with a fusible link be used on a closure that is required to have a fire protection rating? Interpretation: Yes (with restrictions) Sentence 3.1.8.14.(5) permits hold-open devices to be used on closures, other than those described in Sentences 3.1.8.14.(3) & (4), which are released upon actuation of a heat-actuated device such as a fusible link. Hold-open devices with fusible links are not permitted on closures described in Sentences 3.1.8.14.(3) & (4). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0094 | Slope of Fire Department Vehicle Access Route | 18/05/2021 | File No: 18-0094 Interpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Slope of Fire Department Vehicle Access Route Can a fire department vehicle access route have a change in gradient of more than 1 in 12.5 for a distance greater than 15 m? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.2.5.6.(1) states the requirements applicable to a portion of a roadway or yard provided as a required access route for fire department use. Clause 3.2.5.6.(1 )(d) requires the access route to "have a change of gradient not more than 1 in 12.5 over a minimum distance of 15 m". The minimum distance for the change in gradient is intended to reduce the possibility of a fire department vehicle bottoming out on the transition between roadway sections that have different slopes. For example, if a road has flat sections at different elevations with a short sloped section between them, the truck front and rear wheels could be on the front and rear flat sections but the underside of the truck could have minimal clearance at the transition from sloped to flat sections. See Figure 1 below. The maximum allowable gradient change of 1 in 12.5 is equal to 8%. Figure 1 - Access Route NOT Code-Conforming (2 changes of gradient: 5% at the bottom and 4% at the top= 9% total) This Code requirement has not changed significantly in many years. The User's Guide to the National Building Code 1995 contained the following statement: "A limit is also set on the change in gradient over short portions of the route, based on the angle of departure of the fire department vehicle. This angle of departure limit prevents a vehicle from dragging its back or centre sections as it negotiates a change in gradient." Clause 3.2.5.6.(1 )(d) also establishes the maximum change in gradient, which is 1 in 12.5 (8%). A sloped section longer than 15 m does not allow an increase in the allowable change in gradient. A steeper change in gradient could still cause a vehicle to bottom out where the gradient changes, even if there is a longer slope at that steeper gradient. Figures 2 and 3 below show code-conforming access routes with one and two changes of gradient, respectively. Figure 2 - Code-Conforming Access Route with One Change of Gradient (one change of gradient at the bottom= 8%) Figure 3 - Code-Conforming Access Route with Two Changes of Gradient (2 changes of gradient: 4% at the bottom and 4% at the top= 8% total)) Keywords: Fire Department, Access Route Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.5.6.(1 )(d) | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0093 | Firestopping of Outlet Boxes | 17/05/2022 | File No: 18-0093 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 4 January 19, revised October 19, 2021 , May 17, 2022 BC Building Code 2018 Firestopping of outlet boxes Firestopping, outlet boxes, combustible outlet boxes, noncombustible outlet boxes, FT rating, fire separation, fire rated assemblies 3. 1.9.1., 3.1.9.2., 3.1.9.3., 3. 1.9.4. 1. Is firestopping required for combustible outlet box penetrations of a fire-rated assembly? 2. Is firestopping required for noncombustible outlet box penetrations of a fire-rated assembly? 3. Are the firestops in Sentence 3.1 .9.4.(1) required at fire-rated assemblies that are not fire separations, such as fire-rated loadbearing walls or exterior walls fire-rated under Subsection 3.2.3, or does the Sentence refer specifically to fire separations? 4. When an FT rated firestop is required at an outlet box, is the firestop intended to be applied only at the annular space around the outlet box, or over the entire opening, req uiring for example a listed firestop putty pad over the entire outlet box? 5. If an FT rated firestop is required for the entire opening, and no such listed firestop system exists for outlet boxes at fire-rated ceiling membranes, does this mean that every such ceiling outlet box requires a gypsum board enclosure around it to maintain the fire-resistance rating? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Sentence 3.1.9.3.(5) permits combustible outlet boxes to be used in a fire-rated assembly without being incorporated in the fire test referenced in Sentence 3.1.9.2.(1 ), provided the opening through the membrane is not more than 0.016m2. However, Sentences 3.1.9.1.(2) and (3) require FT rated firestopping for penetrations of firewalls, horizontal fire separations designed to Article 3.2.1.2, and fire separations designed to Sentence 3.6.4.2.(2). In addition, Sentence 3.1.9.4.(1) requires that FT rated firestopping be provided, based on CAN/ULC-S115, "Fire Tests of Firestop Systems", at outlet boxes penetrating a membrane forming part of a fire-rated assembly. 2. Yes, except for certain situations. Sentence 3.1.9.1.(1) requires that penetrations of a fire separation or a membrane forming part of a fire-rated assembly, be: a) Firestopped based on CAN/ULC-S115, "Fire Tests of Firestop Systems", b) Cast in place, or c) Tightly fitted. In addition, Sentences 3.1 .9.1.(2) and (3) require FT rated firestopping based on CAN/ULCS115, "Fire Tests of Firestop Systems", for penetrations of firewalls, horizontal fire separations designed to Article 3.2.1.2, and fire separations designed to Sentence 3.6.4.2.(2). Sentence 3.1.9.4.(1) further requires that FT rated firestopping be provided at outlet boxes penetrating a membrane forming part of a fire rated assembly, except for vertical fire separations, or a membrane forming part of a fire rated assembly, if the following limitations are met for the outlet boxes: - Maximum area 0.016m2 with an aggregate area of 0.065m2 in any 9.3m2 of surface area, - Annular space between the membrane and the noncombustible outlet box must not exceed 3mm. The following therefore summarizes the firestopping requirements for outlet boxes. a) The Notes to Part 3, A-3.1 .9.4 for Outlet Boxes indicates: For the purposes of Article 3.1.9.4, outlet boxes include, but are not limited to, electrical boxes, junction boxes, high and low voltage outlets, switches, enclosures for electrical equipment, laundry boxes, and shower diverters. b) In addition to firestopping requirements, Sentence 3.1.9.4.(3) requires that outlet boxes at opposite sides of a vertical fire separation be separated by a minimum 600mm horizontal distance, or fireblocking conforming to Article 3.1.11.7. c) Sound separation integrity requirements must also be considered for outlet box penetrations. d) Refer also to previous BC Building Code Interpretation 18-0021. 3. Yes. The firestops in Sentences 3.1.9.1.(1) and 3. 1.9.4.(1) both refer to application at outlet boxes that penetrate the membrane of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating, such as at loadbearing walls that require a fire-resistance rating or exterior walls fire-rated under Subsection 3.2.3., as well as at fire separations. However, Sentence 3.1.9.4.(1) refers to the FT rating equal to the fire separation rating. Therefore, if the assembly is not a fire separation but is only required to have a fire-resistance rating, no FT rating is required. Refer also to past BC Building Code interpretation 12-0022. 4. Yes. Based on current limited availability of FT listed firestop products for outlet boxes, it is typically not sufficient to only firestop the annular space around the outlet box to achieve the FT rating. The FT rated firestop system must typically be applied over the entire opening occupied by the outlet box. 5. No. As previously discussed in interpretation 18-0021, Sentences 3.1.9.4.(1) and (2) apply to vertical and horizontal fire separations. These contain requirements adopted from NBCC 2015. Prior to adoption, these code changes were circulated in fall of 2013 for public review and comment, and the rationale for new Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) included the statement: "A new Sentence for noncombustible electrical outlet boxes as per International Building Code is introduced". This is assumed to be IBC 2012 edition current at the time. IBC 2012 references 714.3.2 and 714.4.1.2 specify protection of membrane penetrations of walls or horizontal assemblies that are required to have a fire-resistance rating. The requirements to allow membrane penetrations by noncombustible electrical outlet boxes are the same for membranes of both vertical and horizontal assemblies and are the same as adopted in Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2), except that NBCC 2015 allows a larger area for an individual outlet box. It is therefore interpreted that the waiver stated in Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) applies to membranes in both vertical and horizontal fire separations. If an FT firestop is required at outlet box of a horizontal fire separation, such as if the waiver conditions in Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) cannot be met, then such firestop system must be FT rated to CAN/ULC-S115, "Fire Tests of Firestop Systems". If these test conditions cannot be met, the ceiling outlet box requires a fire-rated membrane enclosure around it to maintain the fire separation continuity. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0092 | Power Actuated Fasteners and Drop-in Anchors | 16/03/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0092 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Power Actuated Fasteners and Drop-in Anchors Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: Power actuated fasteners, drop-in anchors, tension loads 4.1 .8.18.(?)(d), Table 4.1.8.18. Can power actuated fasteners and drop-in anchors be used for connections to the structure of elements and components listed in Table 4.1.8.18. when they are subjected to very small tension loads in the range of 50N to 100N? Interpretation: No Clause 4.1.8.18.(?)(d) prohibits the use of power actuated fasteners and drop-in anchors for elements and components listed in Table 4.1.8.18. when they are subject to any tension load, particularly when the tension loading is cyclical imposed by seismic response. The only locations where power actuated fasteners and drop-in anchors can be used are as follows: • For elements and components that are not listed in Table 4.1.8.18., and • For fasteners and anchors that are not subjected to tension loads. Commentary J of the Structural Commentaries (User's Guide - NBC 2015: Part 4 of Division B) states in Item 237 for Sentence 4.1.8.18.(7) Clause (d) the following: Clause (d): Shallow drop-in-type a nd10rs described in ACI J55.2 and power-actuated fasteners, such ,1s nails and studs in concrete must not be used to resist cyclic tension loading imposed by seismic response, as these types of connections are unable to withstand this type of loading. Post-installed anchors are to be used for this application; they should be qualified for earthquake loading in acc0rdancc with /\Cl 355.2 or 1\CI 355.-t "Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in Concrete and Commentary." Refer also to previous Interpretation 12-0020. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0091 | Voluntary Sprinkler Installation | 16/03/2021 | File No: 18-0091 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 ___________________________________ Patrick Shek, P.Eng., CP, FEC, Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC, which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch, Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate in the committee’s proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. 2023-11-13 Interpretation Date: March 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Voluntary Sprinkler Installation Sprinkler System Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.4.1.(1), 3.2.5.12, Division A 1.1.1.2.(1) Question: Where an existing building is renovated and a sprinkler system is not required but it is voluntarily installed, must the sprinkler system comply with the requirements of the applicable NFPA standard (NFPA 13, 13R or 13D depending on the building), where it is installed in: 1. the entire building? 2. part of the building? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Sprinkler systems are required to comply with NFPA 13, 13R or 13D depending on the type of building as stated in Sentence 3.2.5.12.(1), other than for exceptions as stated in that Sentence. Article 3.2.5.12 does not distinguish between required and non-required sprinkler systems. Non-required sprinkler systems must comply with applicable NFPA requirements. The NFPA standards contain many requirements that relate to both the design and installation of sprinkler systems. Where an existing building is renovated, BCBC Division A Sentence 1.1.1.2.(1) states that the level of life safety and building performance shall not be decreased below a level that already exists. Non-compliance with NFPA requirements could reduce the level of life safety and building performance. For example, a sprinkler system that does not comply with NFPA requirements for pipe hangers may be more prone to water leakage, which could damage the building including the existing fire separations, and thereby reduce the existing level of both life safety and building performance. Also, a sprinkler system design that does not follow NFPA requirements could result in more sprinklers operating than in a code-conforming system, which could use too much of the available water supply and make the system ineffective because there would not be enough water for individual sprinklers or for manual hose response by firefighters. Sentence 3.2.4.1.(1) requires a fire alarm system in a sprinklered building, only where the sprinkler system is required by Part 3. If the sprinkler system is not required by Part 3, a fire alarm system would not be required just because the building is being sprinklered voluntarily. However, if a fire alarm system is not installed in a sprinklered building, it cannot be considered as a sprinklered building with respect to other BCBC requirements. If the building has a fire alarm system, the requirements of Subsection 3.2.4 such as for sprinkler system supervision and annunciation are applicable regardless of whether the sprinkler system is required by Part 3. 2. Yes As stated in the response to Question 1, sprinkler systems must comply with the applicable NFPA requirements as referenced in Sentence 3.2.5.12.(1), regardless of whether the systems are required. This also applies to partial system installation. NFPA 13 – 2013 includes the following requirements: If a non-required sprinkler system is installed in only part of a building, the building cannot be considered as a sprinklered building with respect to the numerous BCBC requirements that refer to sprinklered buildings. The system installation must also comply with Division A Sentence 1.1.1.2.(1) as described in the response to Question 1. In addition, the sprinkler system design in accordance with NFPA standards is based on the assumption of sprinkler system operation within the design area, i.e. the area in which sprinklers may operate during a fire. Except in a very small floor areas, the design area is only a portion of the floor area because the operating sprinklers will typically control the fire spread. If there is a partial sprinkler system adjacent to an unsprinklered area, with no fire separations between sprinklered and unsprinklered areas, the fire spread in the unsprinklered area may be uncontrolled and thereby cause excessive sprinkler activation in the sprinklered area. This could limit the effectiveness of the sprinklers by reducing the water discharge at each operating sprinkler, and also draw more water from the system which may reduce the available water supply for manual firefighting. As noted in the NFPA 13 excerpt above, the authority having jurisdiction must be consulted if a partial sprinkler system is proposed, and fire separations may be necessary between the sprinklered and unsprinklered areas. Sentence 3.2.4.1.(1) requires a fire alarm system in a sprinklered building, only where the sprinkler system is required by Part 3. If the sprinkler system is not required by Part 3 a fire alarm system would not be required just because part of the building is being sprinklered voluntarily. If the building has a fire alarm system, the requirements of Subsection 3.2.4 such as for sprinkler system supervision and annunciation are applicable regardless of whether the sprinkler system is required by Part 3. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0090 | Doorway emptying onto ramp, length of landing | 15/12/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0090 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: December 15, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Doorway emptying onto ramp, length of landing Keywords: Landing length, ramp, doorway, end wall Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.6 .4.(5) Question: For ramps not designed for use by persons with disabilities, Sentence 3.4.6.4.(5) requires that where a doorway empties onto a ramp through an end wall, a level area is required across the ramp width and for a 900mm length. Does this mean that a 900mm door at the end wall, emptying onto the ramp landing, can swing up to or even over the edge of the landing where it meets the sloping part of the ramp? Interpretation: Yes. For ramps not used by persons with disabilities, Sentence 3.4.6.4.(5) and its intent statements consider that a minimum 900mm long landing, where a doorway empties onto a ramp through an end wall, will provide sufficient space to avoid tripping and falling, congestion or delays during evacuation, or for emergency responders. Refer to the following diagram: Practically however, depending on whether the ramp slopes up or down, there may be conflict between the ramp surface and the edge of the door swing, if the door is wider than the landing length. This situation is not addressed by the Building Code. However, it is good design practice to allow the door to have its swing entirely over a level surface. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0089 | Floor Drain Requirements in a Single Family Dwelling with a Secondary Suite | 19/01/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC Fiie No: 18-0089 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: January 19, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Floor Drain Requirements in a Single Family Dwelling with a Secondary Suite Keywords: Floor Drain, Dwelling Unit, Secondary Suite Building Code Reference(s): 9.31.4.3.(1) Question: In a single family dwelling containing a secondary suite located in the basement of a building, where gravity drainage to a sewer is possible, is a floor drain required in the secondary suite in addition to a floor drain located in the mechanical room which forms a part of the main dwelling unit? Interpretation: No, Sentence 9.31.4.3.(1) requires a floor drain in a basement forming part of a dwelling unit where gravity drainage to a sewer is possible. The Code does not specify the location of the floor drain and does not require an additional floor drain in the secondary suite. As always, the BCBC provides for the minimum requirements for buildings and an owner may wish to consider the effectiveness of providing only one floor drain in the building described above. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0088 | Minimum Size for Building Drain Cleanout | 16/03/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0088 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Minimum Size for Building Drain Cleanout Keywords: Cleanout, Building Drain, Size Building Code Reference(s): 2.4.7.1.(6), 2.4.7.2.(2), 2.4.9.4.(1), Table 2.4.10.6.-C, Table 2.4.10.9. Question: What is the minimum size cleanout for a building drain? Interpretation: Sentence 2.4. 7 .1.(6) requires a clean out be provided which conforms with Sentence 2.4.7.2.(2), minimum 4" in size, located as close as practical to the place where a building drain leaves a building. These are two distinct Sentences within the BCPC and Sentence 2.4.7.2.(2) would still apply to any other drainage system pipe defined as a building drain (i.e., storm or sanitary). This results in any pipe which is defined as a building drain requiring a cleanout fitting of minimum 4" in size. Sentence 2.4.7.2.(2) was a new requirement in the 2018 BCPC which has led to requiring a minimum 4" cleanout on all building drains regardless of building drain size. The Committee feels this may have been an unintended consequence of adding this Sentence, however a Code change request would be required to have this corrected. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0087 | Measuring LO to an ROW or Crown Land | 19/01/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0087 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: January 19, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Measuring LO to an ROW or Crown land Keywords: Limiting Distance, Crown land, ROW, Spatial Separation Building Code Reference(s): Division A 1.4.1.2.(1) definition of limiting distance Division B 3.2.3.1.(1), 9.10.15. Question: 1. Can the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) consider Crown land, bodies of water and right of ways (ROW) similar to a "public thoroughfare" in applying the Code definition of limiting distance? 2. Is there a difference in risk of exposure if the limiting distance extends onto land with a ROW vs Crown land or other legal parcel? 3. Does the AHJ have the authority to accept a design where the limiting distance is measured other than a property line, centre line of a public thoroughfare or to an imaginary line between two buildings on the same property? Interpretation: 1. Yes, with conditions. The Code requires that limiting distance is measured to a property line, centre line of a street, lane or public thoroughfare or to an imaginary line between two buildings on the same property. As a ROW, Crown land or bodies of water do not meet the definition of street, lane or public thoroughfare the limiting distance should be measured to the property line. However, as the objective of Subsections 3.2.3., 9.10.15 and 9.10.14 are to limit the probability of fire spread from building to building, it may be reasonable to extend the limiting distance beyond the property line, provided the AHJ: • agrees that the risk of development of the adjacent parcel is improbable, • a legal agreement is registered on title to bring the building into compliance should the site conditions change in the future. (note the covenant should be on the parcel of land under development, not the adjacent parcel). The legal agreement can be in the form of a fenestration covenant or a no-build covenant, and • The applicant prepares and submits the proposal as an alternative solution This is consistent with Building Code appeals 1562 and 1837 attached for reference. 2. No, The BC Building Code only prescribes measuring limiting to a property line, centre line of a street or to an imaginary line between two buildings on the same property. The Code does not take into account the ownership of the adjacent parcel (i.e. Crown land or ROWs). The level of risk should be reviewed by the local authority, and a legal professional. 3. This question is not appropriate for this Committee. Municipal authorities are granted under the Local Government Act and Community Charter, not the BC Building Code. This question should be brought to a legal professional. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0086 | Plenums in Dwelling Units | 19/01/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0086 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: January 19, 2021 Building Code Edition : BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Plenums in Dwelling Units Keywords: Plenum, Heat-Recovery Ventilator, Heat Pump Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.4.3.(2), 3.1.5.18.(3), 3.1.5.21 .(2) ., 3.1.5.23.(2) 3.6.4.3, 3.6.5.1., 3.6.5.4. Question: In a building regulated by Division B, Part 3, where a dwelling unit has a heat-recovery ventilator (HRV) or heat pump that draws return air through a dropped ceiling space within the dwelling unit such as over the kitchen and bathrooms, are those ceiling spaces required to comply with requirements for plenums? Interpretation: No, if the ceiling space is contained entirely within one dwelling unit. The widespread use of dropped ceiling spaces within dwelling units for return air is a relatively recent design development, and has become fairly common in major residential buildings with the extensive use of HRVs or heat pumps. In the past, in some buildings the return air had been drawn through the floor area of the dwelling unit, to a return air grille directly to an HRV or heat pump. Drawing the return from more than one intake point, through the ceiling space, allows better air distribution within the dwelling unit. The return air is at room temperature . A plenum is defined as "a chamber forming part of an air duct system." For buildings where combustible construction is permitted, Sentence 3.1.4.3.(2) requires optical fibre cables and electrical wires and cables in a plenum (with minor exceptions) to have an FT4 rating . For buildings where noncombustible construction is required , with some exceptions Sentences 3.1.5.21 .(2) and 3.1.5.23 .(2) require wires/cables and non-metallic raceways to have an FT6 rating when they are installed in a plenum. Sentence 3.6.4.3.(1) allows services and other material within a plenum to not be noncombustible, in a building where noncombustible construction is required , and to waive the provisions of Article 3.6.5.1 restricting the use of combustible ducts and fittings within a plenum, provided all materials with in the plenum have a flame spread rating not more than 25 and smoke developed classification not more than 50, except for electrical services that comply with Sentences 3.1.4.3.(2) or 3.1.5.21 .(2) as applicable, or for totally enclosed noncombustible raceways that have FT4 or FT6 ratings depending on whether combustible construction is permitted. The intent statements for Sentence 3.6.4.3.(1) refer to limiting the spread of fire and smoke from one fire compartment to another by means of the plenum. Sentences 3.6.5.1.(1) and (2) regulate the materials allowed for duct systems in plenums. Sentence 3.1.5.18.(3) waives the requirements of Sentences 3.6.5.1.(1) and (2) for ventilation air ducts that are contained entirely within a dwelling unit. Sentence 3.6.5.1.(3) makes a similar statement to allow combustible ducts within a dwelling unit. In other words, there is no need to apply Sentence 3.6.4 .3.(1) to ventilation ducts that are entirely within a dwelling unit. For both Sentences 3.1.5.18.(3) and 3.6.5.1.(3), the Building Code intent statement states that these materials are deemed to insignificantly contribute to fire growth and spread. However, Sentence 3.6.5.4.(2) still requires a maximum flame spread rating of 25 and maximum smoke developed classification of 50 for coverings, linings, adhesives and insulation for ducts and plenums. The intent statement for this requirement refers to limiting fire and smoke spread to other parts of the building by means of the air duct systems. The Building Code intent statements for the requirements in Subsection 3.1 that limit the electrical services in a plenum are similar to each other, and refer to limiting the spread of fire along the surface of electrical services. Sentences 3.1.5.18.(3) and 3.6 .5.1.(3) represent some recognition in the Building Code that services contained entirely with a dwelling unit pose a lower risk than in other service spaces. A dropped ceiling space within one dwelling unit is different from a typical plenum in most other buildings. The dwelling unit is required to be separated from the remainder of the building by 45 min . or 1 h fire separations, so that a Code-complying ceil ing space will have no openings for fire to spread to another fire compartment. Therefore, the intent of limiting fire spread along the services would be to limit the fire spread within one dwelling unit. Within a dwelling unit, fire spread along wiring, cables or raceways in a dropped ceiling is unlikely to be more hazardous than fire spread through the occupied areas of the unit. If the return air is drawn through the living area of a dwelling unit instead of the ceiling space, there would be no additional plenum requirements for the living area. The return air for a HRV or heat pump typically does not have any installed ductwork. The return air passes through the dropped ceiling to the HRV or heat pump. This is not a typica l plenum such as in an office or other commercial building , where air from a plenum is usually drawn from an entire floor area to a shaft that serves multiple fire compartments. Based on the related Building Code requirements and on the characteristics of the return air through an in-suite dropped ceiling , it would not be reasonable to apply the plenum requirements to a dropped ceiling space within one dwelling unit. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0085 | Exterior Foam Plastic Insulation | 17/11/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0085 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 17, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Exterior Foam Plastic Insulation Keywords: Foamed plastic insulation, rain screen air gap Building Code Reference(s): 9.25.5.2. , 9.25.2.3.(3) , A-9.25.2.3.(3) Question: 1. Is foamed plastic insulation permitted to be installed outboard of an air space that is vented to the outdoors as per 9.25.5.2.(1)(c)? 2. If the foamed plastic is located as described in Question 1, can it be considered as thermal insulation for the building? 3. If the foamed plastic is located as described in Question 1, can it be considered when determining the ratio requirements of 9.25.5.2.(1)(b)? Interpretation: 1. Yes Clause 9.25.5.2.(1)(c) permits sheet and panel type materials described in 9.25.5.1. to be installed outboard of an air space that is vented to the outside. Foam plastic insulation is considered as a sheet and panel type material per 9.25.5.2. 2. No As stated in 9.25.2.3.(3) and A-9.25.2.3.(3), thermal insulation must have at least one full face to be in full and continuous contact with an element of low air permeance. As stated in the Notes to Part 9 - A-9.25.2.3.(3), for thermal insulation to be effective, it must not be short circuited by convective air flow through and around the material. The rain screen air gap provides this short circuit which prevent the foam plastic to perform as thermal insulation. 3. No As stated in Answer #2 above, since the foamed plastic cannot be considered as thermal insulation, it does not have any affect of the ratio of outboard to inboard insulation described in 9.25.5.2.(1)(b). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0084 | Required RSI for Spray Foam Insulation applied directly to underside of roof sheathing within an attic with HRV Equipment | 15/12/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0084 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: December 15, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Required RSI for Spray Foam Insulation applied directly to underside of roof sheathing within an attic with HRV equipment Keywords: RSI, effective thermal resistance value, spray foam insulation, thermal protection, cathedral ceiling, attic, HRV equipment. Building Code Reference(s): 9.36.2.6.(1), Table 9.36.2.6.-8, 9.36.3.9, 9.36.2.6.(3) Question: A Part 9 building located in zone 5 for heating degree-days, has an enclosed attic having heat recovery equipment conforming to Article 9.36.3.9, with a ceiling between the attic and the indoor spaces below. If, within the attic, spray foam insulation is applied directly to the underside of roof sheathing and the top chord of supporting engineered roof trusses above the attic, can the assembly thus insulated be considered as "cathedral ceiling" thereby only requiring minimum 4.67 RSI effective thermal resistance (instead of minimum 6.91 RSI effective thermal resistance required at ceilings immediately below attics)? Interpretation: No, unless the attic is fully conditioned as interior space, or if there is no ceiling between the attic and indoor spaces below. Tables 9.36.2.6.-A and 9.36.2.6.-8 set out the expected minimum RSI effective thermal resistance for various types of above-ground opaque assemblies in buildings based on what can be reasonably achieved for typical construction assemblies. Reduced minimum RSI values are given where it is acknowledged limited space is available for implementing increased minimum RSI values, such as for cathedral ceilings, flat roofs, exterior walls, and floors over unheated spaces. For example, a specific reduction to 3.52 RSI is also given for localized conditions such as in Sentence 9.36.2.6.(3) for ceiling assemblies under sloped roofs near the exterior wall where vertical space is restricted. Note A-9.36.2.6.(3) "Reduced Effective Thermal Resistance Near the Eaves of Sloped Roofs", indicates: "The exemption in Sentence 9.36.2.6.(3) recognizes that the effective thermal resistance of a ceiling below an attic near its perimeter will be affected by roof slope, truss design and required ventilation of the attic space. It is assumed that the thickness of the insulation will be increased as the roof slope increases until there is enough space to allow for the installation of the full thickness of insulation required." Therefore, where the attic volume allows for implementing higher RSI values directly above the ceiling, the Building Code expects higher minimum RSI values as compared to building assemblies where increasing the volume or thickness of insulation is not practical. Within an attic space, providing insulation directly to the underside of roof sheathing and top chord of roof trusses above the attic, whether sloped or flat; cannot reclassify these assemblies as cathedral ceilings or flat roofs for the purposes of applying minimum required RSI values. Building envelope integrity, durability, and compliance with Part 10 must also be reviewed when considering applying spray foam insulation directly to the underside of roof sheathing and the top chords of engineered roof trusses. If the attic space is fully conditioned and is effectively interior conditioned space, or if the ceiling between the attic and indoor spaces below is removed, it is not considered an attic space, and the RSI values used for cathedral ceilings could be implemented, subject to all the other building envelope requirements. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0083 | Door Release Hardware at Exit Lobbies and at Exterior Doors from Exit Stair Shafts | 19/01/2021 | AIBC , EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0083 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: January 19, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Door Release Hardware at Exit Lobbies and at Exterior Doors from Exit Stair Shafts Keywords: Door release hardware, panic hardware, push paddles, exterior exit doors, exit stair shafts, occupant load, lobbies used as exits, entrance vestibules Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.6.16.(2)(b), 3.4.4.2. Question: Clause 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) requires special door release hardware at every door leading to an exit lobby from an exit stair shaft; and at every exterior door leading from an exit stair shaft in a building having an occupant load more than 100. 1. For an entrance lobby designed for use as an exit in accordance with Article 3.4.4.2., is the special door release hardware also required at all the doors along the path of travel through to the exterior, such as the lobby main entrance door and intervening vestibule doors? 2. For a building having a total occupant load over 100 persons, but having an adjoining portion of the building cut off from the remainder of the building such that that cut off portion only serves its own occupant load 100 or less; would such a cut off portion still require door release hardware at the exterior doors leading from its own separate exit stair shafts? 3. For exit stair shafts serving floor areas having a combined total occupant load 100 persons or less, but adjoining another portion of the building cut off from the remainder of the building such that that portion's occupant load increases the combined total building occupant load to more than 100 persons; would door release hardware still be required for the exit stair shafts in accordance with Clause 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) if the exit stair shafts do not serve such adjoining cut off portion? 1. Yes, if the building occupant load is over 100 persons. It is interpreted that "every exterior door leading from an exit stair shaft in a building having an occupant load more than 100" is intended to include all doors in the path of travel through to exterior open space, including such doors as the lobby main entrance door and intervening vestibule doors. Similarly, and to be consistent with this principle, if below grade and above grade exit stair shafts converge for a building having a combined occupant load over 100 persons, the jointly used interior doors in the path of travel to the exterior door must also have the required door release hardware. This is notwithstanding the below grade exit stairs could be serving below grade levels having a combined occupant load of 100 or less persons. Refer to the Diagram further on. It should be noted that for the purposes of Clause 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) the building occupant load includes basement parkade levels as well. The intent statement provided for Sentence 3.4.6.16.(2) indicates: "To limit the probability of delays in opening exit doors in an emergency situation, which could lead to delays in the evacuation or movement of persons to a safe place, which could lead to harm to persons." If a building has an occupant load of over 100, such that there is a potential for over 100 persons having to evacuate simultaneously through an exit stair shaft through to the exterior, the door release hardware provided at doors in the path ot exit travel will reduce the risk of delay due to the occupant load considered as high or necessitating queuing to evacuate. If the building occupant load is 100 persons or less, there is no requirement for door release hardware at the lobby main entrance door and intervening vestibule doors. 2. Yes. Clause 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) requires the exterior doors leading from an exit stair shaft to have door release hardware if the building total occupant load exceeds 100 persons. The Building Code does not address more complex situations where not all floor areas of the building are served by the typical minimum 2 sets of exit stair shafts. 3. Yes. Clause 3.4.6.16.(2)(b) requires the exterior doors leading from an exit stair shaft to have door release hardware if the building total occupant load exceeds 100 persons. The Building Code does not address more complex situations where not all floor areas of the building are served by the typical minimum 2 sets of exit stair shafts. Door release hardware includes any door hardware that will release the door latch and allow the door to swing wide open when using up to the maximum specified force applied to the device in the direction of exit travel; such as panic hardware or push paddles | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0082 | Fixture Unit Load for a Wet Vent Serving a Water Closet | 17/11/2020 | AIBC , EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0082 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 17, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Fixture Unit Load for a Wet Vent Serving a Water Closet Keywords: Wet Vent, Fixture Unit Load Building Code Reference(s): 2.5.2.1., 2.5.8.1.(1), 2.5.8.1.(2), 2.5.2.1.(1)(f), Table 2.5.8.1. Question: When using a 3"x2" Double Y in the horizontal position where one side of the Y connects to a 2" shower drain and the other side of the Y is the wet vent connecting to the lavatory; 1. What is the fixture unit load used when determining the size of the wet vent? 2. Can a 2" branch with a load of 6 fixture units be connected to one side of the 3"x2" double Y in lieu of the 2" shower drain? Interpretation : 1. Sentence 2.5.8.1.(2) states "When determining the size of a wet vent the hydraulic load from the most downstream fixture or symmetrically connected fixture shall not be included." Therefore, since the 2" shower drain is symmetrically connected at the 3"x2" double Y the hydraulic load need not be included when sizing the wet vent. If the lavatory has an 1¼" p-trap the fixture unit load would be 1 and the minimumsize would be 2" in accordance with Sentence 2.5.8.1.(1), which directs the Code user to Table 2.5.8.1.. 2. No, Clause 2.5.2.1.(1)(f) limits the hydraulic load of separately vented branches or fixture drains connected to the wet vent to 2 fixture units. Since the branch which is connected to the 3"x2" double Yin this question has a hydraulic load of 6 fixture units it is not permitted. It is important to keep in mind that if the branch had a hydraulic load of 2 fixture units it would be permitted to be connected to the 3"x2" double Y, howeve r the load of 2 fixture units would need to be included in the load when sizingthe wet vent (if the lavatory is as above then the total load on the wet vent would be 3 fixture units). This Interpretation is consistent with a previous Plumbing Officials Association of British Columbia (POABC) Interpretation #5080 which is attached for reference. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0081 | Engineering Design of Guards | 16/03/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0081 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Engineering Design of Guards Keywords : Guards, professional engineer Building Code Reference(s): Division B, Part 9; 9.8.8.2.(4) Question: There are typical guard designs that are frequently repeated in single dwelling units. Would it be reasonable to use these typical guards for a dwelling unit regulated under Part 9 without a professional seal of a registered professional with training and experience in structural design? Interpretation: Yes, with conditions. Sentence 9.8.8.2.(4) states that guards within a dwelling unit and exterior guards serving not more than two dwelling units need not comply with Table 9.8.8.2. for loads provided the guard construction used has been demonstrated to provide the effective performance. If the typical guard construction meets this criterion, it can be installed without the involvement of a structural engineer. Note that some authorities having jurisdiction may require guards to be designed by a registered professional with training and experience in structural design when the guards utilize glazing as the primary structural element (i.e. cantilevered structural glass guards). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0080 | Supported Joist Span | 17/11/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0080 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: November 17, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Supported Joist Span Keywords: Joist span, footing widths Building Code Reference(s): 9.15.3.4.(2)(b) , A-9.15.3.4.(2) , Table 9.15.3.4. Question: Table 9.15.3.4. provides prescriptive values for the minimum width of footings when the supported joist spans (sjs) does not exceed 4.9m and the footing does not support masonry or flat insulated concrete. Clause 9.15.3.4.(2)(b) provides a prescriptive method to determine the incremental increase to the minimum footing width when the supported joist spans exceed 4.9m. Articles 9.15.3.5. and 9.15.3.6. provide prescriptive methods for the incremental increase to the minimum footing width when the footing supports masonry or flat insulated concrete. 1. For the purposes of the formula in Clause 9.15.3.4.(2)(b), is the supported joist span (sjs) equal to the sum of one half of the clear span of each supported joist that superimposes a load on the footing? 2. If the footing also support roof loads, does the supported joist span include roof joists or roof trusses? Interpretation: 1. Yes The support joist span used in the formula in Clause 9.15.3.4.(2)(b) represents the superimposed load from actual contributing area supported by the footing as illustrated in diagram 1 on Page 2. 2. Yes If the footing supports a roof load, the formula in Clause 9.15.3.4.(2)(b) must include the superimposed load from actual contributing roof area supported by the footing as illustrated in diagram 2 on Page 2. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0079 | Geotechnical Field Review on a Continuous Basis | 17/11/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0079 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: November 17, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Geotechnical Field Review on a Continuous Basis Keywords: Field review, deep foundations, engineered fills, retaining structures, continuous basis Building Code Reference(s): 4.2.2.3.(1) and 4.2.2.3.(2)(a) Question: Sentence 4.2.2.3.(1) requires that geotechnical field reviews associated with excavation and foundation systems for buildings be carried out by the designer (i.e. the geotechnical engineer of record - GER) or by another suitably trained person to ascertain that the subsurface conditions are consistent with the design and that the construction is carried out in accordance with the design and good engineering practice. Clause 4.2.2.3.(2)(a) requires that such field review be provided on a continuous basis for the following aspects: 1. Deep foundation units, 2. Installation and removal of retaining structures and related backfill operations, and 3. Engineered fill that supports foundation units. Does the term "continuous basis" mean that the designer or by another suitably trained person must be present on the jobsite 100% of the time when these activities are underway? Interpretation: No, (except in certain circumstances). Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia (the Association) is the regulatory and licensing body for the engineering and geoscience professions in British Columbia (BC). To protect the public, the Association establishes, maintains, and enforces standards for the qualification and practice of its members and licensees. The Association provides various practice resources to its members and licensees to assist them in meeting their professional and ethical obligations under the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. One of those resources is professional practice guidelines, which establish the standard of practice for specific professional activities. The Association works with experts in their fields to develop professional practice guidelines where additional guidance is beneficial or required. These Professional Practice Guidelines - Geotechnical Engineering Services for Building Projects provide guidance on professional practice for Engineering Professionals who carry out geotechnical engineering services related to building projects in British Columbia. This Guideline was originally published in March 1998 and was recently updated on September 17, 2020. The Guideline outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GER) and specifically addresses "field reviews on a continuous basis" in Subsection 3.3.4. on Page 16 of the Guideline as indicated below: Conduct Field Reviews, including construction observation and testing that the GER deems necessary to form a professional opinion about the geotechnical aspects of the work undertaken by the contractor, and to appropriately complete the Letters of Assurance for the Authority Having Jurisdiction. In cases where Field Review is required on a "continuous" basis as per Division B, Subsection 4.2.2.3(2) of the BCBC or VBBL, the GER must ensure that methods and techniques are defined and documented that meet the intent of continuous Field Review. This should include the identification of qualified person(s) who provide the necessary observations, the required records of such observations, and the nature of supervision provided by the GER. During Field Reviews, confirm that work quality is sufficient to support the design intent, promote safety, and limit movement, especially if any of these could affect off-site and/or vulnerable buildings. Provide observations, testing, advice, and recommendations to facilitate the successful completion of the geotechnical related aspects of the building. As described in the definition of field review, the frequency and extent of field review is at the professional discretion of the GER and can vary depending upon soil, groundwater & weather conditions, site & design complexity, expected performance, and contractor workmanship and efficiency. GERs may use various techniques to fulfill the intent of "field review on a continuous basis" which may rely upon a combination of prescriptive and performance specifications, field review by professional engineers and qualified technicians, field density testing by the GER's firm and third party agencies, and engineering photographs / videos from the site. Many GERs in their professional discretion do provide full-time field review during installation of deep foundations and permanent rock anchors relied upon for foundation support due to the critical importance of these foundation units. Foundations and earthworks are some of the most critical elements of projects, and the least accessible to remediate following construction, so the GER takes this into consideration when establishing the frequency and extent of field reviews. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0078 | Combustible Exterior Soffits or Ceilings in a Noncombustible Building | 20/10/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0078 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: October 20, 2020 (Revised March 16, 2021) Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Combustible Exterior Soffits or Ceilings in a Noncombustible Building Keywords: soffits, combustible , noncombustible build ing Building Code Reference(s): 3.1 .5.1., 3.1 .5.5., 3.1 .5.12.(3) & (4), 3.1.5.24. Question: 1. Are combustible exterior soffits or ceilings permitted in a building that is required to be noncombustible construction? 2. Can a combustible cladding material that meets the requirements of Article 3.1.5.5., including testing to CAN/ULC S134, be used as an exterior soffit or ceiling in a building that is required to be noncombustible construction. 3. Can a material that meets the requirements of Sentences 3.1.5.1.(2) to (4) , including testing to CAN/ULC S 135 be used as an exterior soffit or ceiling in a building that is required to be noncombustible construction. Interpretation: 1. No (with one exception) Except as described in Article 3.1.5.24., there are no provisions in Subsection 3.1.5. that permit the use of exterior combustible soffits or ceilings in a building that is required to be noncombustible construction. Sentences 3.1.5.1 2.(3) & (4) permit some use of interior combustible ceilings, but there is no similar provision for exterior combustible soffits or ceilings. Article 3.1.5.24. permits the use of decorative wood cladding on exterior fascias and soffits of marquees or canopies on the building face of a storey having direct access to a street or access route. This wood cladding must be fire retardant treated and conditioned in conformance with ASTM D-2898 before being tested to CANIULC S102 for maximum flame spread rating of 25 as required by Sentence 3.1.4.5.(1 )(b). 2. No Article 3.1.5.5. permits the use of combustible cladding when tested to CAN/ULC S134, but this test is based on a vertical orientation of the cladding when the full-scale wall assembly is tested. Combustible soffits or ceilings in a horizontal orientation would be subjected to much higher temperatures under fire conditions, so CAN/ULC S134 is not the appropriate test for exterior soffits or ceilings. Note that alternative solutions must demonstrate that the measures in the alternative solution will achieve at least the level of performance required by Clause 1.2.1.1.(1 )(b) of Division A. Since the use of exterior combustible soffits or ceilings is not addressed in the building code, the level of performance has not been established within the building code itself, so alternative solutions may not be appropriate for use in this matter. Some authorities having jurisdiction may accept a comprehensive technical report to justify the use of combustible cladding that has been tested to CANIULC S134 in exterior soffits or ceilings. This report would have to demonstrate that the exterior combustible soffits or ceilings provide a level of performance that is safe for its intended use. 3. Yes Materials that pass the CAN/ULC S135 test and meet the additional requirements of Sentences 3.1.5.1.(2) to (4) are permitted to be used in a building that is required to be noncombustible construction. Therefore, they would be permitted to be used in exterior soffits. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0077 | Application of CSA 8651 for Tactile Walking Surfaces | 19/01/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0077 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: January 19, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Application of CSA 8651 for Tactile Walking Surfaces Keywords: Tactile Walking Surface Indicators Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.1.(1), 3.8.3.1.(2), 3.8.3.2, 3.8.3.9.(3), Table 3.8.3.1, CSA 8651, Division A 1.5.1.2.(1) Question: Where an interior accessible route will comply with CSA 8651 instead of the BCBC, are the tactile walking surfaces required to comply with CSA 8651? Interpretation: No. Clause 3.8.3.1.(1)(b) and Table 3.8.3.1 allows specific accessibility requirements to comply with CSA 8651 "Accessible Design for the Built Environment" instead of the applicable BCBC requirements. Sentence 3.8.3.1.(2) requires that each accessible application as listed on a specific line in Table 3.8.3.1 must comply entirely with either the BCBC or CSA 8651. However, the BCBC and CSA 8651 are not always aligned in the distribution of requirements within their respective documents. In the BCBC, the requirements for interior accessible routes are in Article 3.8.3.2. The applicable CSA 8651 provisions are 4.3 and 5.1, as stated in Table 3.8.3.1. There can be some confusion because the BCBC requirements for tactile walking surfaces are in Article 3.8.3.9, but the CSA 8651 requirements for tactile walking surfaces are in provision 4.3.5. Since 4.3.5 is within 4.3 it would also be applicable to interior accessible routes that comply with CSA 8651. However, Table 3.8.3.1 has a different line for the signage and indicators that are described in Article 3.8.3.9. The applicable CSA 8651 provisions for signage and indicators are 4.3.5, 4.5 and 9.4. This means that a design where the interior accessible routes comply with CSA B651 but the signage and indicators comply with the BCBC would require the tactile walking indicator surfaces described in both B651 4.3.5 and BCBC Article 3.8.3.9. These are different requirements and it would not be logical to apply both sets of requirements. Division A Sentence 1.5.1.2.(1) of the BCBC states "In case of conflict between the provisions of this Code and those of a referenced document, the provisions of this Code shall govern." The differing requirements for tactile walking surfaces, when both sets of requirements may be applicable, are a conflict between the BCBC and CSA B651. Therefore, in that condition, the BCBC requirements will govern. Clause 3.8.3.1.(1)(b), which permits the use of specific provisions of CSA B651, states that buildings can be designed in accordance with the applicable provisions of CSA B651. In this case, the tactile walking surface requirements of CSA B651 are not applicable, where they conflict with the BCBC requirements . It is interpreted that, where a specific accessibility application of the BCBC is addressed in Table 3.8.3.1, that application can individually comply with either the BCBC or CSA B651. For example, because tactile walking surfaces are addressed in BCBC Article 3.8.3.9, they are not required to comply with B651 4.3 which is referenced from BCBC Article 3.8.3.2. The designer can choose whether to follow the BCBC or the CSA B651 requirements | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0076 | Openings near Unenclosed Exterior Exit | 16/02/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0076 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s) Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 February 16, 2021 BC Building Code 2018 Openings near unenclosed exterior exit Unprotected openings, unenclosed exterior exit, wired glass, glass block, fire compartment 9.9.4.4.(1) Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1) requires unprotected openings in exterior walls to be protected with wired glass or glass block if an unenclosed exterior exit stair or ramp provides the only means of egress from a suite and is exposed to fire from unprotected openings in the exterior walls of another fire compartment or another dwelling unit, ancillary space or common space in a house with a secondary suite. Does the protection of unprotected openings only apply to those exterior walls that are exposing building faces? Interpretation: No. Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1) requires unprotected openings in exterior walls to be protected with wired glass or glass block if an unenclosed exterior exit stair or ramp provides the only means of egress from a suite and is exposed to fire from unprotected openings in the exterior walls of a another fire compartment or another dwelling unit, ancillary space or common space in a house with a secondary suite. The term "unprotected openings" in Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1) is italicized so it is a defined term. According to Division A, Part 1, Article 1.4.1.2. "unprotected opening (as applying to exposing building face) means a doorway, window or opening other than one equipped with a closure having the required fire protection rating or any part of a wall forming part of the exposing building face that has a fire-resistance rating less than that required for the exposing building face. There are two parts to the definition of unprotected opening. The first part is a doorway, window or opening that does not have the required fire protection rating. The second part is a wall forming part of the exposing building face that has a fire-resistance rating less than that required for the exposing building face. Throughout the code, the location of unprotected openings is specified such as in exterior walls of fire compartments or in exposing building faces. Clauses 9.9.4.4.(1 )(a) and (b) specify the locations of those unprotected openings and clearly they are not limited to those openings in the exposing building faces. Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1) only requires the unprotected openings in exterior walls to be protected with wired glass or glass block so the meaning of unprotected openings should be in accordance with the first part of the definition, i.e. doorway, window or opening of any exterior walls, not just those openings in the exposing building faces. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0075 | Egress from Occupied Roofs | 18/05/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0075 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: May 18, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Egress from Occupied Roofs Keywords: Egress, Exit, Exterior Exit Passageway Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.3, 3.4.2.5, 3.4.4.3 Question: On an open roof deck with exit doors to two separate exit stairs, can a delineated exit passageway be assumed on the roof from one exit to the other, to allow travel distance to be measured to that delineated exterior exit passageway? Interpretation: Yes (subject to concurrence with the AHJ) Sentence 3.3.1.3.(5) requires a means of egress at the roof level, designed in accordance with the requirements for exits in Section 3.4, for an occupancy at the roof. There are exceptions for Sentence (4) for a roof deck serving a single dwelling unit, and for Sentence (6) which requires two such means of egress, designed in accordance with the requirements for exits in Section 3.4, from a roof used or intended for an occupant load of more than 60 persons. Sentence 3.3.1.3.(7) further clarifies that the occupied roof area shall be used in place of the floor area in determining the egress requirement for Sentences (5) and (6). Note that this Sentence as published in the December 2019 BCBC revisions referenced Sentence (4) and (5), instead of (5) and (6). The BC Building and Safety Standards Branch will be publishing an errata to update these references, to Sentences (5) and (6). Locations of exits are regulated in Article 3.4.2.5, which specifies travel distances in a floor area, to an exit. "Floor area" is defined as the space between exterior walls and required firewalls (with additional exceptions that are not relevant to this question). An open roof does not have any floor area, but because Sentence 3.3.1.3.(7) requires the occupied roof area to be used in place of the floor area, the travel distance to an exit on a roof is limited to the same travel distance as in a floor area. Article 3.4.2.5 allows different travel distances to an exit in sprinklered and unsprinklered floor areas. There are no references to the allowable travel distance on an open roof deck. An open deck could not be sprinklered because there is no ceiling, but unlike in an enclosed floor area, smoke or other products of combustion are unlikely to accumulate in high concentrations at a roof deck. Therefore, it would be reasonable to use the allowable exit travel distance in a sprinklered floor area, for an open roof deck. The use of a delineated exit passageway between rooftop exits, with the travel distance measured to that delineated passageway, is an analogy to an exterior exit passageway as regulated in Article 3.4.4.3. of the Code. For exterior passageways complying with that Article, a fire separation is not required between the passageway and the adjacent floor area, and the exit travel distance can be measured to the passageway. It may be possible for a delineated rooftop passageway to meet the intent of the exterior passageway requirements, but the Code does not recognize the concept of a delineated passageway. Such an approach would require review with the authority having jurisdiction. Some buildings may have large exterior podium areas, where exiting through the building is not necessary to reach a street, or where exits are remotely separated or in different structures adjoining the podium. Although the building code does not address such large roof decks, it may be possible to consider the podium as an exterior open space where travel distance is not regulated. Such an approach would require review with the authority having jurisdiction. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0074 | L-Shaped Grab Bars in Accessible Showers | 19/01/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0074 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: January 19, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: L-Shaped Grab Bars in Accessible Showers Keywords: Grab Bars, Accessible Showers Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.8.(10), 3.8.3.16.(1), CSA B651 Question: Can the L-shaped grab bar required in an accessible shower be provided by separate vertical and horizontal grab bars? Interpretation: The answer to this question depends on the approach to compliance with accessibility requirements, as described below. BCBC Sentence 3.8.2.8.(10) requires that, except within a suite of residential occupancy, where showers are provided in a building , at least one shower stall in each group of showers shall comply with Subsection 3.8.3. Clause 3.8.3.16.(1)(f) requires these accessible showers to have 2 grab bars. One of these bars is required to be vertical and located near the entrance to the shower, on the side wall where the seat is located. The other grab bar is required to be L-shaped and located on the wall opposite the shower entrance , with the vertical member near the side wall where the seat is located. (Refer to Clause 3.8.3.16.(1)(f) for dimensions.) Clause 3.8.3.16.(1)(f) refers only to 2 grab bars, one vertical and one L-shaped, so using 2 bars to simulate the L-shaped bar would not comply with this requirement. However, these grab bar requirements are significantly different from requirements in previous BCBC editions. There are reports that L-shaped grab bars of the dimensions required for accessible showers, which are different from the L-shaped grab bars required at water closets, are not readily available . Subject to agreement with the authority having jurisdiction, it may be acceptable to install separate horizontal and vertical grab bars that meet the dimensional requirements for the L-shaped grab bar. Alternatively, Table 3.8.3.1 allows bathing facilities, including showers and bathtubs, to comply with Section 6.5 of CSA B651 "Accessible Design for the Built Environment" instead of complying with BCBC Articles 3.8.3.16 (for showers) and 3.8.3.17 (for bathtubs). As required by provision 6.5.5.3 of CSA B651, the L-shaped grab bar is actually replaced by separate vertical and horizontal grab bars. However, in addition to these two grab bars and the vertical grab bar at the entrance beside the seat, B651 also requires another horizontal grab bar on the opposite side of the shower stall from the seat, so B651 requires a total of 4 grab bars for accessible showers. If this option is chosen, compliance with all of B651 Section 6.5 is required, and the BCBC shower and bathtub requirements in Articles 3.8.3.16 and 3.8.3.17 will no longer be applicable. The insert below indicates an acceptable roll-in shower stall in accordance with CSA B651 - 2012. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0073 | Travel Distance to Fire Extinguishers on Typical Residential Floors | 15/09/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0073 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 15, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Travel Distance to Fire Extinguishers on Typical Residential Floors Keywords: Fire extinguishers, travel distance, dwelling units Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.5.16.(1) of BCBC , 2.1.5 .1. of BCFC , 6.2.1.2.2 ., 6.2.1.4. & A-6.1.1 . of NFPA 10 Question: In a multi -family residential building with public corridors, is the travel distance to the nearest portable fire extinguisher measured from the residential suite entry door? Interpretation: Yes Sentence 3.2.5.16.(1) requires that portable fire extinguishers be provided and installed in accordance with the BC Fire Code. Sentence 2.1.5.1.(1) of the BCFC says that fire extinguishers must be installed in all buildings except dwelling units. Sentence 2.1.5.1.(2) of the BCFC says that fire extinguishers must be installed per NFPA 10. Sentence 6.2.1.2.2. of NFPA 10 says that fire extinguishers must be located so that the maximum travel distance shall not exceed 75 ft, except per Article 6.2.1.4. Article 6.2.1.4. deals with standpipe hose connections, so it is not relevant to the travel distance to portable fire extinguishers in residential buildings. A-6.1.1. in the Annex of NFPA 10 states that the intention of the portable extinguishers is to assist in evacuation. As such, in the context of the Fire Code, the portions of the building that form the evacuation route from the dwelling units are the public corridors that lead to the exits. There fore, the public corridors are the only portion of the building on typical residential floors that need to be provided with portable fire extinguishers and the 75 ft travel distance to the nearest fire extinguisher can be measured from the residential suite entry door. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0072 | Limiting Distance in Remote Areas | 15/09/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0072 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 15, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Limiting Distance in Remote Areas Keywords: limiting distance Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.15.3.; 9.10.15.2.(2); 9.10.15.4.(3); 9.10.15.5.(3); 9.10.15.5.(11) Question: Article 9.10.15.3. requires using half the actual limiting distance for input when calculating the requirements of Subsection 9.10.15. with exceptions of three Sentences: 9.10.15.2.(2), 9.10.15.4.(3) and 9.10.15.5.(3). Sentences 9.10.15.5.(5) and (11) establish the requirements for combustible roof soffits in the exposing building faces of houses. Is it required to use half the actual limiting distance when applying Sentences 9.10.15.5.(5) and (11) Interpretation: No. Sentences 9.10.15.5.(5) and (11) do not mention limiting distance, so they are not affected by the firefighter response time. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0071 | Handrail Graspability | 16/03/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0071 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: March 16, 2021 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Handrail Graspability Keywords: Handrail, Continuously, Continually Building Code Reference(s) 9.8.7.2.(1), 9.8.7.5.(2) Question: In a building regulated by Division B, Part 9, must a required stair handrail be continuously graspable? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 9.8.7.2.(1) states that required handrails must be continuously graspable throughout the length of ramps and flights of stairs, with the exception of stairs or ramps serving a single dwelling unit where the handrail can be interrupted by a newel post on the bottom tread. This exception does not affect the requirement for the handrail to be continuously graspable. Article 9.8.7.5. is titled "Ergonomic Design". Sentence 9.8.7.5.(2) requires all handrails to be continually graspable along their entire length with no obstruction on or above them to break a handhold. Sentence 9.8.7.2.(1) uses the term "continuously" but Sentence 9.8.7.5.(2) uses "continually". The Note A-9.8.7.5.(2) describes the intent of the continual graspability requirement, to allow a person's fingers and thumbs to curl under part or all of the handrail. The continual graspability is part of the ergonomic design and is intended to ensure that all parts of the handrail are graspable. The requirement for continual graspability is not intended to modify the requirement of Sentence 9.8.7.2.(1) for a required handrail to be continuously graspable throughout its entire length. The sketch below indicates a handrail that is NOT acceptable, because the vertical pickets are the same width as the railing that serves as a combined handrail and the top of the guard, and the pickets interrupt the graspability. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0070 | Exemption of Braced Wall Panels at Porches | 15/09/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0070 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: September 15, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Exemption of Braced Wall Panels at Porches Keywords: Exem ption , braces wall panel, porches Building Code Reference(s): 9.23 .13.5.(3) Question: 1. Sentence 9.23.13.5.(3) waives the requirements for braced wall panels on porches provided they meet certain criteria. Does this waiver apply to all 3 exterior sides of the porch? 2. Subclause 9.23.13.5.(3)(c)(ii) requires the roof of such a porch to have roof framing not more than 400 mm oc and attached to the wall framing in accordance with Table 9.23.3.4. Does this mean that everv roof ioist must be attached to the side of everv wall stud? Interpretation: 1. Yes Sentence 9.23.13.5.(3) waives the requirements for braced wall panels in all 3 of the exterior sides of a porch provided that the porch complies with all the conditions described in Sentence 9.23.13.5.(3). Although the illustration on Page 20 of the BC Housing Illustrated Guide for Seismic Bracing (see illustration on Page 2) indicates the 2 end walls of the porch are solid walls, these end walls are permitted to be open per Sentence 9.23.13.5.(3). 2. No There are a variety of ways that the roof joists can be attached to the wall framing. Two variations are illustrated in the Notes to Part 9 Figures 9.23.13.5.(3)-A & B (refer to illustrations on Pages 2 & 3). Figure A indicates roof joists perpendicular to the wall with a wood ledger fastened to each wall stud, each roof joist attached to the wood ledger and the roof joists at each end of the porch to be extended to be attached to the side of the wall studs. Figure B indicates roof joists running parallel to the wall with beams at each end that are attached to the sides of the wall studs Note that the roof joists must be spaced at 400 mm oc. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0069 | Height of Foundation Wall | 21/07/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0069 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Height of Foundation Wall Keywords: Heig ht, foundation wall, laterally supported Building Code Reference(s): 9.15.4.2 ., Table 9.15.4.2.-A, Question: When applying Table 9.15.4.2.-A is the height of the foundation wall measured from the top of the footing, or from the top of the slab on grade? Interpretation: This depends upon whether the slab on grade can resist lateral loads induced by lateral earth pressures on the foundation wall. If the slab on grade has sufficient thickness and is poured tightly against the inside face of the foundation wall, the height of the foundation wall can be measured to the top of the basement slab on grade. If the slab does not exhibit those characteristics, the height of the foundation wall must be measured to the top of the footing. It is common practice to provide a thermal break between the slab edge and the foundation wall, so the slab could not be used to resist the lateral forces from the lateral earth pressures. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0068 | Applicable Requirements for Fabric-Covered Structures | 21/07/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0068 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: July 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Applicable Requirements for Fabric-Covered Structures Keywords: Fabric-Covered Structures, Tents Building Code Reference(s) : 3.1.6, A-3.1.6, 3.2.2.2.(1) Question: Are the requirements of Subsection 3.1.6 for tents also applicable to fabric-covered structures such as yurts? Interpretation: No (except in certain situations). Subsection 3.1.6 applies to tents and air-supported structures. The Building Code Notes in A-3.1.6 state: "The requirements in this Subsection are intended to be limited to certain types of structure. For instance, the word "tent" as used in the Code is intended to refer to a temporary shelter which is used at an open-air event such as a fair or an exhibition. A tent will normally be constructed of a fabric held up by poles and attached to the ground by ties. The requirements for tents, however, are not intended to be applied to fabric structures located on buildings." A fabric-covered structure is assumed to be a long-lasting building, not a temporary installation such as a tent as described in the Note excerpted above. On this basis, it would be subject to the Code requirements for permanent buildings, as for any other type of building. However, there can be many different types of fabric-covered structures or tent-like structures. Structures such as yurts for residential use, including short-term rental accommodation, would be subject to the same requirements as any other permanent building. Fabric coverings that are provided only for weather protection such as for road salt or sand storage in municipal or highway maintenance yards, or for industrial equipment that would otherwise be exposed to the exterior environment, would in most cases not be considered as buildings. There are certain types of fabric-covered structures where it is appropriate to apply the provisions of Subsection 3.1.6., particularly when the structure poses minimal fire risk: • Storage warehouses with minimal combustible content, • Weather protection covering in lumber yards for lumber storage, provided the storage complies with the requirements of the BC Fire Code Section 3.3 - Outdoor Storage. • Farmer's Market tents • Golf cart storage tents There may be unusual or unique aspects of fabric-covered structures where it is appropriate to evaluate the building on the basis of alternative solutions as permitted by Article 1.2.1.1. of Division A, or as a special or unusual structure as described in Sentence 3.2.2.2.(1). The application of Subsection 3.1.6. to other types of structures should be discussed with the AHJ. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0067 | Fire Separation or Fire Rating of Roof over Elevator Hoistway | 20/10/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0067 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 4 Interpretation Date: October 20, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire separation or fire rating of roof over elevator hoistway Keywords: Roof fire separation, roof fire resistance rating, elevator hoistway Building Code Reference(s): 3.5.2.1.(1), 3.5.3.1.(1), 3.2.2.14., 3.1.8.3, 3.6.3.1.(2) Question: Sentence 3.5.3.1.(1) requires that a vertical service space used as an elevator hoistway, be separated from all other portions of each adjacent storey by a fire separation having a fire rating in accordance with Table 3.5.3.1. In a building in which a roof is not required to have a fire resistance rating: 1. Is the roof immediately over an elevator hoistway required to be designed as a fire separation? 2. Is the roof immediately over an elevator hoistway required to have a fire resistance rating? Interpretation: 1. This will depend on the elevator hoistway enclosure wall to roof junction details. If the elevator hoistway vertical enclosure provides a continuous fire separation from the remainder of the building, such that the roof immediately over the elevator hoistway is also separated from the roof over the remainder of the building; then there is no requirement to design the roof over the elevator hoistway as a fire separation. Refer to cross section Diagram A below. If the building roof deck spans over and across an elevator hoistway vertical enclosure such that the elevator hoistway enclosure is carried up tightly fitted to the underside of the roof deck, or any gaps firestopped; then there is no requirement to design the roof over the elevator hoistway as a fire separation. Refer to cross section Diagram B below. If an unrated building roof assembly or attic space spans over and across an elevator hoistway vertical enclosure such that the roof assembly or attic space is common to both the remainder of the building and the elevator hoistway, it will be necessary at the roof assembly or attic space to maintain the required fire separation between the elevator hoistway and the adjacent storey. In other words, the portion of the roof immediately over the elevator hoistway must be designed as a fire separation to satisfy Sentence 3.5.3.1.(1), and in accordance with Sentence 3.6.3.1.(2), the roof immediately over the elevator hoistway must have a fire resistance rating not less than that of the hoistway enclosure . Refer to cross section Diagram C below. If the elevator hoistway does not extend to the roof assembly, it will be necessary at the top of the elevator hoistway, to maintain the required fire separation between the elevator hoistway and the adjacent storey. In other words, an enclosing assembly immediately over the elevator hoistway must be designed as a fire separation to satisfy Sentence 3.5.3.1.(1), and in accordance with Sentence 3.6.3.1.(2), this must have a fire resistance rating not less than that of the hoistway enclosure. Refer to cross section Diagram D below. The intent statements for Sentence 3.5.3.1.(1) indicates that a fire in an elevator hoistway or storey is not to spread to another storey by means of the hoistway, or fire is not to spread from a storey into an elevator hoistway. The intent statements for Sentence 3.6.3.1.(2) indicates that fire is not to spread from the vertical service space into the storey that is located at the top of the vertical service space. 2. This will depend on the elevator hoistway enclosure wall to roof junction details. In accordance with Sentence 3.6.3.1.(2), the roof immediately over the elevator hoistway must have a fire resistance rating not less than that of the hoistway enclosure, if the hoistway roof is a required fire separation as previously described in 1. above. Refer to cross section Diagrams C and D below. Note that Sentence 3.2.2.14.( 1) requ ires a roof-top enclosure for elevator machinery to be of the appropriate construction type required under Subsection 3.2.2. The elevator design and installation standard ASME A17.1-2016/CSA 844-16 "Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators", regulates construction at the top of the hoistway, in reference 2.1.2.1 which indicates: "The top of the hoistway shall be enclosed as required by the building code" | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0066 | Mezzanine access to exit via another Storey | 20/10/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0066 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: October 20, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Mezzanine access to exit via another storey Keywords: Mezzanine egress, access to exit Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.1.1, 3.2.8.1, 3.2.8.2, 3.4.2.2 Question: Sentence 3.4.2.2.(1) requires mezzanines to be served by means of egress leading to exits accessible at the mezzanine level on the same basis as floor areas, unless Sentence 3.4.2.2.(2) can be met. If Sentence 3.4.2.2.(2) is not met, Sentence 3.4.2.2.(3) permits one of the means of egress to be via the stair providing access to the mezzanine level. Can the required second means of egress be via a door in a fire separation into another storey (different from the storey that contains the mezzanine) that happens to be located at the same level as such mezzanine, and from there, via the floor area access to the exit? Refer to the explanatory cross section Diagram below. Interpretation: No. Assuming the mezzanine is intended to be designed to Article 3.2.1.1, the required means of egress cannot be via a fire separation into another storey (different from the storey within which the mezzanine is located) and from there, via the floor area access to the exit serving that other storey; even if the other storey happens to be located at the same level as the mezzanine. Refer to the explanatory cross section Diagram below. The intent statement for Sentence 3.4.2.2.(1) indicates: "To limit the probability that egress routes from a mezzanine will become untenable in a fire situation during the time involved in reaching the exits accessible at mezzanine level, which could lead to delays in the evacuation or movement of persons to a safe place, which could lead to harm to persons". When the Building Code uses the term "floor area", consistent with its definition, it typically implies located on the same storey as the area, room, or mezzanine served (within the same fire compartment). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0065 | Grade Requirements for Venting Systems | 21/07/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0065 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Grade Requirements for Venting Systems Keywords: Vent Pipe, Grade Building Code Reference(s): 2.5.6.1.(1), 2.5.6.4. Question: Can a pipe in a venting system be installed with negative slope or must vent pipes grade upwards towards outside air? Interpretation: Sentence 2.5.6.1.(1) states that vent pipes shall be installed without depressions in which moisture can collect. With the foregoing in mind, this means that as long as the vent pipe is installed with grade downwards to a point that water will drain out (such as connecting to another vent pipe), the installation would be compliant with the BCPC. There is no BCPC requirement that pipes in a venting system grade upwards toward outside air. The BCPC only requires that the venting system is installed in a manner that does not trap water which would then prevent air from circulating in the drain, waste and vent (DWV) system. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0064 | Structural Design Loads for Exterior and Interior Areas Subject to Vehicular Traffic | 21/07/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0064 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: July 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Structural Design Loads for Exterior and Interior Areas Subject: Subject to Vehicular Traffic Keywords: Structural, design loads, vehicular traffic, fire trucks, physical barriers Building Code Reference(s): 4.1.5.5.(1), A-4.1 .5.5.(1) Question: 1. For exterior areas of a building that are accessible to vehicular traffic, is it mandatory to install physical barriers at the entrances to these areas if the structure supporting these areas is not designed to carry the weight of firefighting equipment or other similar heavy vehicles? 2. For interior areas of a building that are accessible to vehicular traffic, is it mandatory to install physical barriers at the entrances to these areas if the structure supporting these areas is not designed to carry the weight of firefighting equipment or other similar heavy vehicles? Interpretation: 1. Yes Sentence 4.1.5.5.(1) states that exterior areas accessible to vehicular traffic shall be designed for their intended use, including the weight of firefighting equipment, but not less than the snow and rain loads prescribed in Subsection 4.1.6. A-4.1.5.5. in Notes to Part 4 states that in Article 4.1.5.5.," accessible" refers to the lack of a physical barrier that prevents or restricts access by vehicles or persons to the site in the context of the specific use. So if the vehicle entries to exterior areas of a building are not provided with physical barriers to prevent high trucks from entering the areas, the structure supporting these areas must be designed to carry the weight of fire trucks or other similar heavy vehicles. If a barrier is provided, highly visible signage is required on the barrier which clearly indicates the headroom clearances and the maximum gross vehicle weight. 2. No (except in certain circumstances) Table 4.1.5.3. describes 3 different live loads for "garages" of 2.4, 6.0, and 12.0 kPa depending upon the weight of vehicles that are anticipated within the garage, or portions of a garage which vary from less than 4000 kg to more than 9000 kg gross vehicle weight. A-4.1.5.3. in Notes to Part 4 states "A special study should be undertaken to determine the distributed loads to be used for the design of floors and areas used by vehicles exceeding 9 000 kg gross weight and of driveways and sidewalks over areaways and basements. Where appropriate, the designer should refer to CSA S6, "Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code." In most cases, the height of the garage itself will act as a physical barrier to prevent heavy vehicles from entering. Overhead signage is commonly provided at the entry to the garage to describe the maximum headroom available within the garage. In some cases, there may be interior areas with high ceilings that are accessible to vehicular traffic and could accommodate heavy vehicles. The structural engineer must assess the potential use of such spaces and select a live load that is consistent with the intended use. If the selected design load is less than 12 kPa, clearly visible signage is required to indicate the maximum gross vehicle weight permitted. If there is a risk of overweight trucks from entering these areas, physical barriers may be appropriate provided they do not compromise the height of vehicles for the intended use from entering the area. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0063 | Location of Smoke Detectors to Close Smoke Dampers | 21/07/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0063 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 4 Interpretation Date: July 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Location of Smoke Detectors to Close Smoke Dampers Keywords: Smoke detectors , motorized smoke dampers Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.8.11.(3) Question: This project utilizes combination motorized smoke/fire dampers that are located at an air transfer louvre that provides make up air to a corridor from a vertical duct shaft where the make up air fan is located on the roof. 1. Is the most suitable location to install a smoke detector on the ceiling of the corridor within 1.5m of the smoke/fire damper that, when activated, will close the adjacent smoke/fire damper? 2. Is it acceptable to automatically close all smoke/fire dampers upon activation of any fire alarm initiating device (e.g. sprinkler flow, manual pull, fire detectors)? Interpretation: 1. Yes (although this is the best location, a code change is required) Sentence 3.1.8.11.(3) states: "Except as required by a smoke control system, smoke dampers and combination smoke/fire dampers shall be configured so as to close automatically upon a signal from an adjacent smoke detector located as described in CAN/ULC-S524, "Installation of Fire Alarm Systems," within 1.5 m horizontally of the duct or air-transfer opening in the fire separation a) on both sides of the air-transfer opening, or b) in the duct downstream of the smoke damper or combination smoke/fire damper" The Intent Statements for Sentence 3.1.8.11.(3) are as follows: Intent 1: To limit the probability that smoke dampers or combination smoke/fire dampers will not close when activated by fire conditions, which could lead to the spread of smoke from one fire compartment to another fire compartment through openings in the fire separation between the fire compartments, which could lead to harm to persons in the other fire compartment. Intent 2: To prevent the operation of all smoke dampers or combination smoke/fire dampers in a building when only the smoke dampers or combination smoke/fire dampers in a fire compartment, where the fire conditions occur, need to close. Intent 3: To prevent the reset of all smoke dampers or combination smoke/fire dampers in a building upon every fire condition. Since the intent of Sentence 3.1.8.11.(3) is to prevent the movement of smoke from one fire compartment that contains a fire to another fire compartment, the best location for the smoke detector that closes the smoke/fire damper is on one side of the smoke/fire damper on the ceiling of the corridor within 1.5m of the smoke/fire damper. It is not logical to also install a fire damper on the other side of the smoke/fire damper as suggested by Clause 3.1.8.11.(3)(a) because the only place to install it would be within the vertical duct shaft. A smoke detector within the vertical duct shaft could be activated by a fire on multiple floor levels, so it may close the wrong damper. It could be interpreted that installing the smoke detector on the ceiling of the corridor meets the intent of Clause 3.1.8.11.(3)(b) since it is located downstream of the smoke damper. The only difference is that it is not located within a duct because there is no duct which is downstream of the smoke damper. The BC Building Code Interpretation Committee has sent a request to NRC to amend the wording of Sentence 3.1.8.11.(3) to allow a single smoke detector on the ceiling of the corridor which is within 1.5m of an air transfer louvre which is connected to a vertical duct shaft. See diagrams on Page 4. There are smoke/fire dampers that are provided with an integral smoke detector, so those would be another option since they comply with Clause 3.1.8.11.(3)(b) provided that the smoke detector is located on the corridor side of the smoke/fire damper. Note that Sentence 3.1.8.11.(2) allows the combination smoke/fire damper to the offset from the fire separation wall by 610 mm to accommodate the smoke detector on the downstream side of the damper. See illustration below. 2 . Yes (in certain circumstances) As stated in Intent 2 above, the requirements of Sentence 3.1.8.11.(3) provide the ability to only close smoke/fire dampers that are near to the fire compartment that contains the fire, but does not mandate this as the only mechanism for closing smoke dampers. There may be certain circumstances where the management of smoke movement requires multiple smoke dampers to close simultaneously (e.g. a duct smoke detector near an exterior air intake louvre that detects smoke in the duct that originates from an exterior source). Refer also to Interpretation 18-0019 for waiving the requirement for smoke dampers in highrise residential buildings if the vertical shaft is designed as part of a smoke control system. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0062 | Design for Wind Uplift on Green Roofs | 21/07/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0062 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Design for Wind Uplift on Green Roofs Keywords: Wind uplift, green roofs, roofing materials Building Code Reference(s): 4.1.5.5.(1 ), A-4.1.5.5.(1) Question: Does the BCBC 2018 require that green roofs be designed to resist wind uplift? Interpretation: No The structural design of green roofs to resist wind uplift is not addressed in the BCBC 2018. Sentence 4.1.1.5.(1) states "Except as provided in Sentence (2), buildings and their structural members shall be designed in conformance with the procedures and practices provided in this Part". Sentence 4.1.7.1.(1) states "The specified wind loads for a building and its components shall be determined using the Static, Dynamic or Wind Tunnel Procedure as stated in Sentences (2) to (5)". Sentence 4.1.7.1.(5) states "For the design of cladding and secondary structural members, one of the following procedures shall be used to determine the specified wind loads." Green roofs are not considered to be" secondary structural members" so the requ ireme nt s of Subsection 4.1.7. for Wind Loads does not apply to green roofs. It should be noted that research is underway at NRC's Dynamic Roofing Facility in Ottawa with respect to wind uplift on green roofs using the NRC wind test chamber. This research may result in some future changes to the National Building Code to address this issue. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0061 | Separate Signal Circuits for Fire Alarm Audible Devices Within Dwelling Units | 20/10/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0061 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: October 20, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Separate Signal Circuits for Fire Alarm Audible Devices Within DwellinQ Units Keywords: Separate Signal Circuits, Audible Devices, Dwelling Units Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.4.18.(7), 3.2.4.18.(8), 3.2.4.18.(11) Question: Where the requirement for manual fire alarm signal silencing within a dwelling unit can be waived for devices that are on a separate signal circuit, is the term "separate signal circuit" intended to refer to a circuit that serves devices that are within a single dwelling unit? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 3.2.4.18.(7) requires that audible signal devices within a dwelling unit must include a means for them to be manually silenced for up to 10 minutes, except as permitted by Sentence 3.2.4.18.(11). Sentence 3.2.4.18.(8) provides two options for the connection of audible signal devices within dwelling unit, to a fire alarm system. These devices can either be connected such that (a) a single open circuit at one device will not impair the operation of devices serving other dwelling units, or (b) the audible devices within a dwelling unit are on separate signal circuits that are not connected to devices in any other unit or public corridor (i.e. Class A wiring). Sentence 3.2.4.18.(11)allows audible devices within a dwelling unit to be silenced automatically for 10 minutes, with other conditions as stated in that Sentence, where the devices within the unit are on a separate signal circuit. The BCBC does not define "separate signal circuit". However, this term is also referenced in Sentence 3.2.4.18.(8) with respect to a circuit that serves devices within only one dwelling unit. This meaning is also consistent with the exception in Sentence 3.2.4.18.(7), which, in combination with Sentences (8) and (11) means that audible signal devices that are on circuits serving only one dwelling unit can be silenced automatically, while these audible devices that are on circuits also serving other units or areas must have a means for manual silencing. The conclusion is that a "separate signal circuit" means that the audible devices within a dwelling unit are on a circuit serving only that one unit. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0060 | Capillary Break | 23/06/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0060 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: June 23, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Capillary Break Keywords: Metal siding, house wrap, capillary break Building Code Reference(s): 9.27.2.2., 9.27.2.3. Question: Is capillary break required with metal siding and house wrap? Interpretation: No. Clause 9.27.2.2.(1)(c) considers hollow-backed metal or vinyl and are horizontally oriented and loosely fastened to the backing substrate deem to have a capillary break between the cladding and the backing assembly. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0059 | Occupant Load | 19/10/2021 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0059 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: July 21 , 2020 (Revised October 19, 2021) Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Occupant Load Keywords: Occupant load, overcrowding Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.17.1(1)(c), 3.1.17.1.(2), BCFC 2.7.1 .3.(1) Question: Article 3.1 .17.1. of the BCBC states that the occupant load is to be calculated based on the floor area of the building. This seems to contradict with the Article 2.7.1.3. of the BCFC, which indicates that the occupant load is calculated on a per room basis. Is it possible to clarify this discrepancy? Interpretation: The occupant load in the BCBC is used for designing the capacity and the necessity of required provisions such as washrooms, egress, exit, structural floor loading, and the requirements for a fire alarm system etc. for the floor area or part of the floor area. Clause 3.1.17.1 .(c) requires the number of persons for the area to be not less than that determined from Table 3.1.17.1 unless it can be shown that the area will be occupied by fewer persons. It can be designed with more occupants but the design of washrooms, egress, exit, floor loading and fire alarm system, etc. must be designed to the higher occupant load. Sentence 3.1 .17.1.(2) states that if a floor area or part thereof has been designed for an occupant load other than that determined from Table 3.1 .17.1., a permanent sign indicating that occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous location. Article 2.7.1.3. of the BCFC regulates the maximum permissible occupant load for each room based on the lesser of the exit capacity provided or the 0.4 sq.m. of net floor space available per person to prevent overcrowding. The Appendix Note A-2. 7.1.3.(1) explains that the net floor space excludes structural features and fixtures, such as tables, furnishings or equipment. In certain buildings, such as assembly occupancies, where the number and type of furnishings may change according to the nature of the function taking place, the building owner or owner's authorized agent may be required to calculate maximum permissible occupant loads for each of the different functions anticipated. The occupant load calculated in Article 3.1.17.1. of the BCBC establishes the minimum occupant load of the floor area or part of the floor area to be used by the designer for designing the capacity and the necessity of required provisions such as washrooms, egress, exit, structural floor loading, the requirements for a fire alarm system, etc. However, after construction, a higher number of occupants may be permitted to enter the room as long as the floor area can accommodate the higher occupant load not exceeding 0.4 sq.m. per person and the means of egress provided for the room will accommodate that number of persons, as specified in the Article 2.7.1.3. of the BCFC to prevent overcrowding. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0058 | Fire Block in SFD Attic over 20m | 18/08/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0058 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: August 18, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire block in SFD attic over 20m Keywords: Concealed spaces, fire blocking Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.16.1.(S)(b) ; 9.10 .16 .1 .(6) Question: Does an attic in a single-family house with combustible attic roof require full fire stop partition when the distance is greater than 20 meters? Interpretation: Yes. As described in Clause 9.10.16.1.(5).(b) and Sentence 9.10.16.1.(6) the size of non-sprinklered combustible attic in the single family house with the lumber that the flame-spread rating is greater than 25 cannot exceed 300m2 and the maximum distance cannot be greater than 20m. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0057 | Minimum Distance of Air Intakes from Source of Contaminants | 21/07/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0057 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: July 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: Subject: BC Building Code 2018 Minimum Distance of Air Intakes from Source of Contaminants Keywords: Air intakes, kitchen cooking exhaust Building Code Reference(s): Table 6.3.2.9., 6.3.1.1.(4) Question: 1. Do the minimum distances between "kitchen cooking exhaust" and "outdoor air intakes" only apply to commercial kitchen cooking exhaust? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is no, if operable windows are used for natural ventilation, are they considered to be "Outdoor Air Intake" for the purposes of Table 6.3.2.9.? Interpretation: 1. No The minimum distances between Source of Contaminants and Outdoor Air Intakes applies to all building types, including exhaust from conventional residential kitchen ranges. 2. No Operable windows in new construction that are used for natural ventilation are not considered to be "Outdoor Air Intake" for the purposes of Table 6.3.2.9. The 3m minimum distance between a conventional residential kitchen exhaust air opening and an operable window does not apply. Although the 3m distance between a residential a conventional residential kitchen exhaust air opening and an outdoor air intake is mandatory as required by Table 6.3.2.9., designers may be able to justify a shorter distance using an alternative solution based on Appendix F of ASHRAE 62.1-2010 which takes into consideration exhaust air volume, dilution factor and exhaust air discharge velocity. Note that for new construction, Sentence 6.3.1.1.(4) requires suites in buildings conforming to Subsection 9.36.6. or 10.2.3. to have outdoor air supplied directly to each suite by mechanical ventilation through ducting, so operable windows are not the only means of providing outdoor air to the suite. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0056 | Use of Piping for Sanitary Force Main | 19/05/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0056 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 19, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Use of Piping for Sanitary Force Main Keywords: Force Main, Sanitary Sewage Pump, Piping Building Code Reference(s): 2.2.1.5.(1), Note A-2.4.6.3., Table A-2.2.5., 2.2.6. and 2.2.7. Question: What type of pipe and fittings is required on the force main piping serving a sanitary sewage pump (ejector)? Interpretation: Sentence 2.2.1.5.(1) states that the piping, fittings and joints used in pressure sewer, force main or sump pump discharge applications shall be capable of withstanding at least one and one-half times the maximum potential pressure. Further, Note A-2.4.6.3. indicates that the force main piping is approved pressure pipe and fittings. Table A-2.2.5., 2.2.6. and 2.2.7. indicates that PVC pipe approved to CAN/CSA-B.137.3 cannot be used for a drainage system above-ground inside a building. Notwithstanding this statement, in order to comply with the requirements listed above, this is one of the appropriate types of piping to use for the sanitary force main serving the sewage sump. The force main piping is considered part of the above-ground drainage system but it is not piping drained by gravity, but rather, is under pressure and any piping approved for pressure applications in the BCPC is in compliance with these requirements. ABS DWV pipe, approved to CAN/CSA B-181.1, and PVC DWV pipe, approved to CAN/CSA B181.2, cannot be used for piping under pressure and would not comply with Sentence 2.2.1.5.(1). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0055 | Firestopping vs Blocking in Floor/Wall Intersections in Conventional Wood Framinq | 17/11/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0055 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: November 17 , 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Firestopping vs blocking in floor/wall intersections in conventional wood framinq Keywords: Continuity of fire separations with fire resistance rating up to 1h, fire blocking, fire stopping, service penetration through the fire separations. Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.8.3(1) ; 3.1.11.2.; 3.1.11 .7. Question: 1. Fire rated fire separation cavity wall intersecting with fire rated fire separation floor assembly. a. What material should be used to install fire blocking? b. What material should be used to seal openings through the fire blocking by building service penetrations? 2. Fire rated fire separation wall intersecting with unrated floor assembly. a. What material should be used to install fire blocking and what material should be used to provide continuity of fire separation? b. What material should be used to seal openings through the fire blocking by building service penetrations? 3. Unrated wall intersecting with fire rated fire separation floor assembly. a. What material should be used to install fire blocking and what material should be used to provide continuity of fire separation? b. What material should be used to seal openings through the fire blocking by building service penetrations? 4. Fire rated fire separation cavity wall intersecting with fire rated fire separation wall. a. What material should be used to install fire blocking? b. What material should be used to seal openings through the fire blocking by building service penetrations? 5. Fire rated fire separation cavity wall intersecting with unrated wall. a. What material should be used to install fire blocking and what material should be used to provide continuity of fire separation? b. What material should be used to seal openings through the fire blocking by building service penetrations? Interpretation: 1.a. Fire blocks as listed in Sentences 3.1.11.7.(1) to (3) and (5) Fire Block Materials. Rim joist provides this function. 1.b. Fire stop as per Sentence 3.1.11.7.(7) and Note A-3.1.11.7.(7). 2.a Doubled fire blocking 2x lumber as listed in Sentences 3.1.11.7.(1) to (3) and (5) Fire Block Materials. Second piece of lumber provides the char protection to complete fire rated fire separation. 2.b. Fire stop system listed for the rating of the fire rated fire separation wall assembly installed in the annual space of the penetrating services. 3.a. Top double plate provides adequate char protection and fire rating for the rated fire separation floor assembly above unrated wall. Bottom plate is less exposed to the heat in fire compartment and single plate will suffice. 3.b. Services installed in rated floor assembly do not need fire stopping when traveling above or below nonrated walls. Services that cross from the cavity of non-rated wall through rated floor assembly need to receive fire stop system listed for the rating of the fire rated floor assembly. 4.a. 2x lumber studs installed at the junction in passing wall and 2x end stud in abutting wall divide cavities within fire rated fire separation wall assemblies. Fire caulking is required if the annular space of penetrating service is larger than 3mm. 4.b. Fire stop as per Sentence 3.1.11.7.(7) and Note A-3.1.11.7.(7) is required for penetration of services crossing the studs blocking the cavity wall. 5.1.a. Continuous GWB at the junction of fire rated, fire separation wall with non-rated wall provides required continuity of fire separation. (For ease of installation the stud of the non-rated wall is not nailed until rated GWB is in place). 5.1.b. Services that penetrate only fire blocking within rated wall do not need fire stop. The services travelling within the non-rated wall and cross a fire rated fire separation wall need to receive fire stop system listed for the rating of the fire rated wall. Doubled fire blocking 2x lumber in non-rated wall and multilayer stud pack in fire rated fire separation wall provide adequate char protection and fire blocking for this junction. 5.2.b. Services that penetrate only fire blocking within rated wall do not need fire stop. The services that travel along the non-rated wall and cross a fire rated fire separation wall need to receive fire stop system listed for the rating of the fire rated wall. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0054 | Passive House Designer or Consultant | 19/05/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0054 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 19, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Passive House Designer or Consultant Keywords: Energy Model, Passive House Institute Building Code Reference(s): 10.2.3.3.(3) Question: Sentence 10.2.3.3.(3) requires the energy model must be prepared by a Certified Passive House Designer, or Certified Passive House Consultant, who is approved by the Passive House Institute when the building must be designed to Step 4. 1) Some Passive House Designers and Consultants are not trained energy modellers. Is it acceptable to have a trained energy modeller prepare the model on behalf of the Passive House Designer or Consultant? 2) One pathway to becoming a Certified Passive House Designer, or Certified Passive House Consultant is the completion and certification of a Passive House project. Is it acceptable to have the energy model prepared by an individual in the process of obtaining their certification? Interpretation: 1. No. Sentence 10.2.3.3.(3) clearly stated that the energy model must be prepared by a Certified Passive House Designer or Consultant, who is approved by the Passive House Institute. It is not acceptable to have another energy modeller prepare the model unless the energy modeller is a Certified Passive House Designer or Consultant. 2. No If an individual is in the process of obtaining their certification from the Passive House Institute that individual has to wait till he or she obtains the certification before he or she can prepare the energy model to demonstrate the compliance with Part 10. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0053 | Seismic Restraint of Mechanical Equipment | 10/03/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0053 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 10, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Seismic restraint of mechanical equipment Keywords: Se ism ic , restra int, m echanical , equipment Building Code Reference(s): 2.2.7.3. of Division C, Schedule B Question: Item 3.6 of Schedule B requires the mechanical engineer to take responsibility for "Structural capacity of mechanical components, including anchorage and seismic restraint". For mechanical equipment that is mounted on the floor, is the extent of anchorage and seismic restraint limited to simply the design and field review of the equipment anchor bolts and anchor plates to resist the seismic loads? Interpretation: No The registered professional of record (RPR) responsible for the mechanical components (MER = mechanical engineer of record) must take overall responsibility for seismic restraint of mechanical components. This RPR commonly requires the mechanical contractor to retain a Specialty Engineer to undertake the design and field review associated with this seismic restraint. The excerpt below from the EGBC Guidelines for Mechanical Engineering Services for Building Projects indicates that the Mechanical RPR is responsible to advise the Structural RPR of the seismic loads imposed on the base building structure. The Structural RPR would then verify that the base building structure can accommodate such loads. 3.2.3.3 Unless otherwise noted, the MER is responsible to assure that the design and field review of any seismic restraint for mechanical elements is completed. This review may be by the Specialty Engineer. When a Specialty Engineer is retained to design the seismic restraint elements. the MER shall review the design details prepared by the Specialty Engineer for the seismic restraint elements for completeness. The MER shall provide the seismic restraint information to the Structural Engineer of Record for coordination with the building structural system. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0052 | Activation of Smoke Dampers | 19/05/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0052 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: May 19, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Activation of Smoke Dampers Keywords: Smoke Dampers, Smoke Detectors Building Code Reference(s) 3.1.8.11.(3), 3.1.8.5.(3) Question: If a smoke damper activated by a smoke detector is installed in a building that does not otherwise require a fire alarm system, does the smoke detector installation mean that a fire alarm system must also be installed? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.1.8.11.(3) requires that, with one exception, smoke dampers and combination smoke/fire dampers shall be configured to close automatically upon a signal from an adjacent smoke detector located as described in CAN/ULC-S524 "Installation of Fire Alarm Systems". This requirement refers only to the location of the smoke detector, and does not mandate compliance with any other fire alarm system requirements. The applicable Code requirements for fire alarm systems are in Subsection 3.2.4, which does not require installation of a fire alarm system if a smoke detector is installed due to other provisions of the Code. In addition, Sentence 3.1.8.5.(3) requires smoke dampers or combination smoke/fire dampers to be installed in conformance with NFPA 105 "Smoke Door Assemblies and Other Opening Protectives". NFPA 105 does not require smoke detectors used to control smoke dampers or fire/smoke dampers to be part of a fire alarm system. However, the Code defines a smoke detector as a type of fire detector, and a fire detector is defined as a device that "... detects a fire condition and automatically initiates an electrical signal to actuate an alert signal or alarm signal... ". An alert or alarm signal would require a fire alarm system. It would be onerous to install a fire alarm system because of a smoke damper, in a building where Subsection 3.2.4 does not require a fire alarm system. It is interpreted that the smoke detector referenced in Sentence 3.1.8.11.(3) is intended to function as part of the damper, and not to trigger a requirement for a fire alarm system. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0051 | Fire Alarm System Exemption for Single Family Dwelling | 19/05/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0051 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 19, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire alarm system exemption for single family dwelling Keywords: Fire alarm system, residential, single-family dwelling, occupant load, sleeping accommodation, direct access to exterior Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.18.2.(2), 9.10.18.2.(5) Question: 1. When a proposed single-family dwelling has 6 bedrooms (sleeping accommodaiton for 12 persons), does such a home require a fire alarm system if one or more of the bedrooms has a door providing direct access to ground level? Interpretation: 1. No. Sentence 9.10.18.2.(2) indicates a fire alarm system is required where 10 persons sleeping accommodation is exceeded, however Sentence 9.10.18.2.(5) is provided as an exception to this. Sentence 9.10.18.2.(5) waives the requirement for a fire alarm system if an exit from a suite has direct access to an exterior exit facility leading to ground level. Such an exterior exit must not be obstructed in the direction of exit travel, by any intervening locked doors, including via a bedroom door. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0050 | Protection of Conductors for Firefighters' Elevators | 20/10/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0050 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: October 20, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Protection of Conductors for Firefighters' Elevators Keywords: Firefighters' Elevators, Emergency Conductors Building Code Reference (s): 3.2.6.5.(6), 3.2.7.10.(1), 3.2.7.10.(5) Question: In a high building, is protection from fire required for both normal and emergency conductors that provide power for the firefighters' elevator(s)? Interpretation: No. Article 3.2.6.5 includes requirements for an elevator for use by firefighters in a high building. Sentence 3.2.6.5.(6) states that electrical conductors for operation of this elevator shall be " (a) installed in service spaces conforming to Section 3.6 that do not contain other combustible material, or (b) protected against exposure to fire from the service entrance of the emergency power supply, or the normal service entrance of the normal power supply, to the equipment served...". Clause (b) provides the option of protecting either the emergency power supply or the normal power supply. However, Subclause 3.2.7.10.(1)(a)(iii) requires protection of electrical and emergency conductors serving emergency equipment within the scope of Article 3.2.6.2 to 3.2.6.8. Since the firefighters' elevator is required by Article 3.2.6.5, it requires the stated protection. Sentence 3.2.7.10.(1) refers to Sentences (2) to (11) for the required protection. Other than for exceptions that are not applicable to this question, Sentence 3.2.7.10.(5) states that the electrical conductors referred to in Sentence (1) are those that extend from the source of emergency power to (a) the equipment served or (b) the distribution equipment supplying power to the equipment served, if both are in the same room. This Sentence refers only to the conductors that extend from the source of emergency power. This protection will also comply with the specific requirement of Clause 3.2.6.5.(6)(b) for protection of either the emergency power supply or the normal power supply. Because the emergency power supply requires protection in accordance with Sentence 3.2.7.10.(1), there is no need to protect the normal power supply. This requires the voltage and frequency relays in the automatic transfer switch to initiate generator operation when those relays do not sense adequate characteristics of the required normal power supply source. As such, the emergency power system is required to activate if the normal power supply to the elevators is lost due to failure or destruction of the normal power cables, even if normal power is still available for other building systems. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0049 | Minimum Water Pressure to Permit Using Table 2.6.3.4. | 17/12/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC FIie No: 18-0049 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: December 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Minimum Water Pressure to Permit Using Table 2.6.3.4. Keywords: Water Pressure, Table 2.6.3.4. Building Code Reference(s): BCPC - 2.6.3.4.(5)(b) Question: Does the minimum water pressure of 200 kPa (30 psi) mentioned in Clause 2.6.3.4.(S)(b) refer to static pressure? Interpretation: Yes. For the purposes of Clause 2.6.3.4.(S)(b), 200 kPa is the minimum static pressure that would be required at the entry to a building to permit the use of Table 2.6.3.4. to size the water system. Further, in Note Aw2,6.3.4.(5), the word static is used in regard to this Clause. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0048 | Combustible Ducts in Noncombustible Buildings | 21/04/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0048 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: April 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Combustible ducts in noncombustible buildings Keywords: Combustible , duct s, horizontal run Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.5.18.( 1), 3.6.5 .1.(2)(d), 3.6.5.1.(5) Question: Sentence 3.1.5.18.(1) and Clause 3.6.5.1.(2)(d) permit the use of combustible ducts in buildings that are required to be noncombustible construction provided the ducts are only used in "horizontal runs". Does that mean that no portion of a combustible duct can be oriented vertically? Interpretation: No Combustible ducts as illustrated on Page 2 are permitted in a building that is required to be noncombustible construction. The intent statement for Sentence 3.1.5.18.(1) is as follows: To exempt certain combustible materials from the application of Sentence3.1.5.1.(1) if certain conditions are met, on the basis that the materials are deemed to insignificantly contribute to fire growth and spread. The intent statement for Clause 3.6.5.1.(2)(d) is as follows: To exempt certain combustible materials from the requirements of Sentence3.6.5.1.(1), which would otherwise require the material to be noncombustible, if certain conditions are met. This is to limit the probability that the materials will contribute to the growth or spread of fire, which could lead to the spread of fire to other parts of the building by means of the air duct systems, which could lead to harm to persons. For the purposes of this interpretation, the term "horizontal run" is interpreted to mean a duct that is contained within a horizontal service space within a single fire compartment which does not penetrate a vertical or horizontal fire separation as per 3.6.5.1.(5). Combustible flexible ducts as illustrated below are permitted in a building that is required to be noncombustible construction. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0047 | Uppermost Floor Level for Residential High Buildings | 10/03/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0047 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: March 10, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Uppermost Floor Level for Residential High Buildings Keywords: floor level, storey, 18 meters, roof-top enclosure Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.1.1.(1), 3.2.6.1.(1)(d) Question: Clause 3.2.6.1.(1)(d) states that a building containing a Group C major occupancy is considered to be a high building when it contains a "floor level" that is more than 18m above grade. 1. Is the term "floor level" intended to include the floor of a roof-top enclosure as described in Sentence 3.2.1.1.(1)? 2. Is the term "floor level" intended to include the floor of a mezzanine which is located within the uppermost storey as described in Sentences 3.2.1.1.(3) or (4)? Interpretation: 1. No Sentence 3.2.1.1.(1) states that a roof-top enclosure that is used for no purpose other than service to the building is not considered to be a storey in calculating building height. Although Clause 3.2.6.1.(1)(d) refers to "floor level" rather than "storey" when determining if a building must be designed to Subsection 3.2.6., it has been common industry practice for many years to waive the floor level of a roof-top enclosure when applying the 18m high building measurement. It should also be noted that, except for the purposes of calculating building height, the floor level of a rooftop enclosure is classified as a storey as defined in Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A This means that Clauses 3.2.6.1.(1)(a), (b) and (c) that refer to "top storey" or "highest storey" could also be misinterpreted to include the floor level of the roof-top enclosure when measuring the 18 m for high building requirements. Note that in a mixed use building with Group C major occupancy in the lower portion of the building and Group Din the upper portion, provided that there are no floor levels containing Group C major occupancy more than 18m above grade, then Clause 3.2.6.1.(1)(d) would not apply. 2. Yes If the uppermost storey includes a mezzanine, which is not considered to be a storey in calculating building height as described in Sentences 3.2.1.1.(3) or (4), the floor level of the mezzanine must be included when applying the 18m high building measurement. In order to clarify the intent of Article 3.2.6.1., the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee has submitted a building code change request to both NRG and BSSB. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0046 | Power Door Operators for Industrial Occupancies | 19/05/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0046 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: May 19, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Power Door Operators for Industrial Occupancies Keywords: Power door operators, industrial occupancies, accessibility, non-industrial uses Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.1.(1), Notes to Part 3 A-3.8.2.1, 3.8.2.7. Question: 1. Are power door operators required for the entrances of industrial occupancies, such as for medium and low hazard industrial suites? 2. Are power door operators required for the entrances where other non-industrial uses are part of, or associated with, the industrial suite? 1. No, with provisions. Sentence 3.8.2.7.(1) sets out the scope of application of power door operators. This Sentence does not apply to the entrances of industrial occupancies. Sentence 3.8.2.7.(2) and (3) are further exceptions to Sentence 3.8.2.7.(1). However, notwithstandingthe exemption for industrial occupancies, power door operators may be required if, for example, the door clearance requirements in Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) are not provided. 2. In the case of non-industrial uses mixed with industrial occupancies within the same suite, there are 2 possible conditions: a) Non-industrial uses that are not considered a major occupancy. Non-industrial uses may be an integral, ancillary, or subsidiary use to the industrial major occupancies, to the extent that the non-industrial uses are not considered a separate major occupancy. For example, an industrial occupancy could have supporting integral office and/or training classroom uses. In such cases the occupancy is still considered industrial for the purposes of Article 3.8.2.7. Past BC Building Code Appeal 1478 illustrates such an example, including a case where the supporting non-industrial use itself exceeds 500m2 in area. Even though there may be an exemption from power door operators, other accessibility features are required within the non-industrial uses, and may also be required in the industrial areas, particularly if there are no industrial hazards and work functions can reasonably be expected to be performed by persons with disabilities. This accessibility aspect is further discussed in the Notes to Part 3, A-3.8.2.1. b) Non-industrial uses that are considered a major occupancy. There may be non-industrial uses that are an associated use to the industrial major occupancies configured and functioning to the extent that the non-industrial uses are considered a major occupancy. In such cases the non-industrial occupancy will be considered a major occupancy for the purposes of Article 3.8.2.7, and power door operators may be required depending on its specific use and size, in accordance with Sentence 3.8.2.7.(1). There may be cases where it may be difficult to ascertain into which of the 2 foregoing conditions the project falls, and as such will necessitate discussion with the Authority having Jurisdiction. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0045 | Soil-or-Waste Pipe Acting as a Relief Vent | 13/01/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0045 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: January 13, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Soil-or-Waste Pipe Acting as a Relief Vent Keywords: Soil-or-Waste Pipe, Relief Vent, Sizing Building Code Reference(s): BCPC -2.5.3.1.(4), 2.5.7.3.(1), 2.5.7.3.(2), 2.5.8.1., Table 2.5.8.1., 2.5.4.5.(1) Question: 1. Sentence 2.5.3.1.(4) permits a soil-or-waste pipe having a hydraulic load of not more than 6 fixture units to act as a relief vent, does Sentence 2.5.7.3.(1) apply when sizing the soil-or-waste pipe acting as a relief vent? 2. Assuming the circuit vent is sized as 2", could an 1¼" soil-or-waste pipe, which drains a lavatory with an 1¼" trap, act as the relief vent for a circuit vented branch serving water closets? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Sentence 2.5.7.3.(1) would apply to a soil-or-waste pipe acting as a relief vent and the minimum size of this soil-or-waste pipe would need to be at least one size smaller than the circuit vent size and need not be larger than 2". Sentence 2.5.7.3.(2) must also be considered as below. 2. No. Sentence 2.5.7.3.(2) states that the soil-or-waste pipe acting as a relief vent in accordance with Sentence 2.5.3.1.(4) must be sized in conformance with Tables 2.4.10.6.A (Maximum Permitted Hydraulic Load Drained to a Soil-or-Waste Stack), 2.4.10.6.B (Maximum Permitted Hydraulic Load Drained to a Branch) or 2.5.8.1. (Hydraulic Loads Draining to Wet Vents), and Article 2.5.7.1. (Minimum Permitted Size of a Vent Pipe Based on Size of Trap Served), whichever size is the largest considering the load drained into the soil-or-waste pipe. Therefore, the first step is to consider Article 2.5.7.1. Since the relief vent serves the water closets on the circuit vented branch the minimum vent size must be 1½", based on the size of the trap served, therefore the 1¼" soil-or-waste pipe does not comply. Next, Article 2.5.8.1. must also be reviewed. Again, the circuit vented branch serves water closets, and since this relief vent is also defined as a wet vent serving water closets, the minimum size of this wet vented portion would be 2". This is the minimum size of a wet vent serving water closets in Table 2.5.8.1., considering the load on the wet vent of 1 fixture unit (the lavatory). The above Interpretation is further supported by the fact that Sentence 2.5.4.5.(1) permits fixtures to be connected to circuit vents or additional circuit vents (among other select vent pipes) with certain restrictions. One of these restrictions being that the minimum size of the section of the vent pipe that acts as a wet vent is minimum 2" in size (Clause 2.5.4.5.(1)(c)). This applies to any circuit vented branch regardless of the size of the fixture outlet pipes connected to it. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0044 | Width of Corridors Providing Access to Adaptable Dwelling Units | 10/03/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0044 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: March 1O, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Width of Corridors providing access to Adaptable Dwelling Units Keywords: Width, corridor, adaptable, access, dwelling units 3.8.3.1.(1), 3.8.3.2.(1)(a), 3.8.5.3.(1)(a), 3.8.5.3.(2), Building Code Reference(s): CSA B651 - Section 5.1 Question: 1. If a designer elects to design the interior accessible routes to the requirements of Subsection 3.8.3 as permitted by Clause 3.8.3.1.(1)(a), is the minimum width of corridor that provides access to adaptable dwelling units 1220 mm as stated in Sentence 3.8.5.3.(2)? 2. If a designer elects to design interior accessible routes to the requirements of CSA B651 as permitted by Clause 3.8.3.1.(1)(b): a. Are corridors within a residential building that provide access to adaptable dwelling units considered to be low traffic areas? b. If so, is the minimum width of such corridor 920 mm as stated in Section 5.1 of CSA B651? Interpretation: 1. No Clause 3.8.5.3.(1)(a) requires that an accessible path of travel be provided to each adaptable dwelling unit in accordance with Subsection 3.8.3. Clause 3.8.3.2.(1)(a) requires an accessible path of travel to have an unobstructed width of not less than 1500 mm. Although Sentence 3.8.5.3.(2) states that a corridor providing access to adaptable dwelling units can be 1220 mm wide, this Sentence is superseded by the 1500 mm minimum width per Clause 3.8.3.2.(1)(a). Refer to Answer 2(b) for the application of the 1220 mm wide corridor. 2.(a) Yes The occupant load of residential floor areas is relatively small compared to other uses such as assembly and retail. Therefore, residential corridors are considered to be low traffic areas. 2.(b) No Clause 5.1.1. of CSA 8651 states that the minimum clear width of accessible routes is 920 mm. In high traffic areas, the minimum width is increased to 1500 mm. Most residential corridors are considered to be low traffic areas, based on the requirements of CSA 8651 , the minimum width of corridors that provide access for persons with disabilities would be 920 mm. Since Subsection 3.8.5. for Adaptable Suites is a "unique to BC" provision, Subsection 3.8.5. is not mentioned in Table 3.8.3.1. Therefore, CSA 8651 cannot be used as an alternate design approach for the requirements of Subsection 3.8.5. The minimum width for corridors and passageways providing access to adaptable dwelling units is 1220 mm as governed by Sentence 3.8.5.3.(2) with 1500 mm x 1500 mm clear floor spaces adjacent to the elevator entrance and at intervals not exceed 9m where the corridor or passageway exceeds 9m measured from the elevator entrance to the end of the corridor or passageway. Since there is some confusion in the industry regarding the appropriate width of corridors and passageways providing access to adaptable dwelling units, the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee has submitted a request for a building code change to BSSB to clarify the issue. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0043 | Acoustic Separation Application to Rooms or Suites not Defined as Dwelling Units | 13/01/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0043 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: January 13, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Acoustic separation application to rooms or suites not defined as dwelling units. Keywords: Acoustic separation, dwelling units Building Code Reference(s): Division A, 1.4.1.2. "dwelling unit" definition, Division B 3.3.4.6.(1), 5.8, 9.11. Question: 1. Are individual guest rooms in motels, hotels, boarding houses, rooming houses, and dormitories, considered dwelling units? 2. If not, are acoustic separation requirements applicable? Interpretation: 1. No, subject to conditions. Division A, Article 1.4.1.2 defines "dwelling unit" as "a suite operated as a housekeeping unit, used or intended to be used by one or more persons and usually containing cooking, eating, living, sleeping and sanitary facilities." Where individual guest rooms in motels, hotels, boarding houses, rooming houses, and dormitories, do not fit this definition, (which is typically the case) they are not considered dwelling units. Rental or ownership does not have a bearing on the classification as to dwelling unit. If the guest rooms or suites contain cooking facilities such as a kitchen, they are typically considered dwelling units. 2. No. Only if individual guest rooms in motels, hotels, boarding houses, rooming houses, and dormitories, are considered dwelling units by definition and by virtue of use and facilities provided, would the acoustic separation provisions of Sentence 3.3.4.6.(1), and Sections 5.8 and 9.11 be applicable. Refer to past BC Building Code Appeal #1621. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0042 | Plastic Vent Pipe from Gas Venting Appliance, Located in Vertical Shaft | 13/01/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0042 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 lnterpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: AIBC, EGBC, BOABC INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 January 13, 2020 BC Building Code 2018 Plastic vent pipe from gas venting appliance, located in vertical shaft Plastic vent pipe, vertical shaft, vertical service space 3.1.5.19.(1) 1. Plastic vent piping is sometimes used as part of a gas appliance venting system, used to discharge the products of combustion to the exterior. ls such plastic piping permitted to be located in a vertical shaft extending vertically through the building? 2. ls the plastic vent piping permitted to be located in a vertical service space containing other building services that penetrate the vertical service space enclosure? lnterpretation: 1. Yes. Plastic vent piping used as part of a gas appliance venting system is typically housed in a vertical shaft extending vertically through the building. Such a shaft is an extension of the space containing the vented appliance, and is not considered to be defined as a vertical service space, as supported by past Building Code Appeal BCAB #1654, provided the shaft is not interconnected with other storeys. Refer to diagram shown on next page. The plastic piping is also regulated by the Gas Safety Regulation and is required to comply with standards CSA 8149.1 'Natural Gas and Propane Installation Code' and ULC S636 'Standard for Type BH Gas Venting Systems'. However for noncombustible buildings, combustible piping is limited to a flame spread rating not exceeding 25. For high buildings there is an additional restriction of smoke developed classification not exceeding 50. 2. No. The Building Code addresses dedicated vertically oriented enclosures containing building services and defines these as vertical service spaces. Typically the Building Code does not intend that combustible piping be located in a vertical service spaces. This is indicated for example for combustible DWV piping in Clauses 3.1.9.5.(4)(b) and Sentence 3.1.9.5.(5) . | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0041 | Roof Drain Leader through an Exit Lobby | 17/12/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0041 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: December 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Roof Drain Leader Through an Exit Lobby Keywords: Exit, Integrity of exit Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.4.4.(1)(b) Question: Is a leader serving roof drain over an exit lobby allowed to penetrate through the roof assembly and pass through the lobby serving as an exit? Interpretation: Yes. The lobby serving as an exit that has a roof assembly directly above can be penetrated with the noncombustible drainpipe and a rainwater leader serving this roof. The subject roof is serving only the exit lobby and as such is not a part of fire separation; therefore, the pipe is not penetrating the fire separation enclosure of the exit. In a case where there is another floor above the exit lobby with a different occupancy, rain water leader serving the roof over that floor must be redirected not to travel through the exit lobby or be enclosed in fire-rated shaft with fire-resistance rating equal to the one it penetrates. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0039 | Curb Ramps in Compliance with CSA B651 | 10/03/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0039 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 10, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Curb Ramps in Compliance with CSA B651 Keywords: Exterior Walks, Curb Ramps Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.1 Question: Sentence 3.8.3.1.(1) allows accessible design provisions of Subsection 3.8.3 to be designed instead in conformance with the applicable provisions of CSA 8651 "Accessible Design for the Built Environment" in their entirety, as stated in Table 3.8.3.1. (Also refer to Interpretation 18-0008 regarding the line by line application of Table 3.8.3.1.) The applicable provisions of CSA 8651 do not include Subsection 8.3.3 which deals with curb ramps. Since Table 3.8.3.1 does not reference the CSA 8651 requirements for curb ramps, does this mean that curb ramps must be designed in accordance with the BC Building Code? Interpretation: No. In the BC Building Code, curb ramps are regulated in Article 3.8.3.3 "Exterior Walks". For this Article, Table 3.8.3.1 refers to CSA 8651 8.2.1 to 8.2.5 and 8.2.7 as the alternative design provisions. In CSA B651, curb ramps are regulated in 8.3.3. "Curb ramps and blended transitions". This portion of CSA B651 is not referenced in Table 3.8.3.1. There are indirect references in 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 to pedestrian routes adjacent to curb ramps, and a reference in 8.2.2 to Figure 64 which is in 8.3.3, showing a pedestrian route and a curb ramp. It is clear from these references that the exterior accessible routes of CSA 8651 are intended to integrate with curb ramps where applicable. It is interpreted that. where exterior accessible routes are designed in their entirety in conformance with CSA 8651, the curb ramp requirements of 8.3.3 are applicable based on the references to curb ramps in 8.2.1 and 8.2.2. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0038 | Fish Farm Warehouse as a Farm Building | 21/01/2020 | AIBC, EGBC and BOABC File No: 18-0038 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: January 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Fish Farm Warehouse as a Farm Building ----- fish farm, farm building 1.4.1.2. - definition of farm building Is the 1995 National Farm Building Code the applicable code for the design of a 2-storey warehouse that contains fish rearing tanks for a salmon farming operation? Interpretation: Yes (with conditions) Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A defines a farm building as follows: Farm buUding means a building or part thereof that does not contain a residential occupancy and that is associated with and located on land devoted to the practice of farming, and used essentially for the housing of equipment or livestock, or the production, storage or processing of agricultural and horticultural produce or feeds. (See Note A-1.4.1.2.(1).) Note that "land devoted to the practice of farming" is determined by the local Zoning Bylaws. Notes to Part 1 - A-1.4.1.2. includes the following statement regarding Farm Buildings: Farm buildings as defined in Article 1.4.1.2. include, but are not Hmited to, produce storage and packing facilities, livestock and poultry housing, milking centres, manure storage facilities, grain bins, silos, feed preparation centres, farm workshops, greenhouses, farm retail centres, and horse riding, exercise and training facilities. Farm buildings may be classed as low or high human occupancy, depending on the occupant load. Examples of farm buildings likely to be classed as low human occupancy as defined in Article 1.2.1.2. of the National Farm Building Code of Canada are livestock and poultry housing, manure and machinery storage facilities and horse exercise and training facilities where no bleachers or viewing area are provided. Examples of farm buildings that would be classed as other than low human occupancy include farm retail centres for feeds, horlicultural and livestock produce, auction barns and show areas where bleachers or other public facilities are provided. Farm work centres where the number of workers frequently exceeds the limit for low human occupancy will also be in this category. It is possible to have areas of both high and low human occupancy in the same building provided that the structural safety and fire separation requirements for high human occupancy are met in the parl thus designated. A warehouse that contains fish rearing tanks would be considered as "housing of livestock" which meets the definition of farm building as well as the definition of low human occupancy. If there are any uses within the warehouse that could have higher human occupancy as described above, the warehouse would not be eligible for use of the 1995 Farm Building Code. It should be noted that NRG is proposing to update the 2020 NBC to include a new major occupancy classification Group G Division 2 for farm buildings that includes facilities for cultured fish and shellfish. It should also be noted that NRG is proposing to update the requirements for large farm buildings in the 2020 NBC and 2020 NFC as noted below: NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF CANADA (NBC) Large Farm Buildings (Part 2) Introduces technical requirements for large farm buildings into Part 2 of Division B of the NBC. The four Sections introduced focus on general technical requirements and classifications, fire protection and occupant safety requirements, structural design requirements, and heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) requirements, respectively. NATIONAL FIRE CODE OF CANADA (NFC) Large Farm Buildings (Parts 2 and 4) Introduces technical requirements for large farm buildings that address the inspection of mechanical and electrical equipment, the control of flammable gases and vapours, and the storage of flammable and combustible liquids. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0037 | Upgrade of existing building to Part 10 of BCBC | 10/03/2020 | AIBC, EGBC and BOABC File No: 18-0037 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 10, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Upgrade of existing building to Part 10 of BCBC Keywords: Alteration, rehabitilation, renovation, change in occupancy, NECB, ASHRAE 90.1, Step Code Building Code Reference(s): 1.1.1.1.(1)(d), 1.5.1.2.(1), 10.2.2.1., 10.2.2.2. Question: Will the requirements of NECB be triggered by building envelope improvements to an existing Part 3 building that was designed to comply with NECB? Interpretation: Maybe Division B, Part 10, Article 10.2.2.2. requires that alteration, rehabilitation, renovation or change in occupancy of an existing building the energy performance of the works shall comply with the original building design such as ASHRAE A90.1, NECB or the Energy Step Code. If the original building was designed to comply with NECB then the energy performance of the works shall comply with NECB. NECB 2015, Division A, Part 1, Sentence 1.1.1.1.(1) states that this code applies to the design and construction of all new buildings and to additions. Technically NECB does not apply to alteration of an existing building. Since Sentence 10.2.2.2.(2) of BCBC has the "nothwithstanding Article 1.1.1.1. of Division A of the NECB" clause that means NECB can be applied to alteration of an existing building. If the existing building was not designed to any of the standards mentioned above then the improvements shall comply with any one of those standards. The extent of upgrades required will depend on the scope of the works and this should be discussed with the AHJ at the earliest stage of the project taking Sentence 1.1.1.2.(1) and the Notes A-1.1.1.2. (1) into consideration. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0036 | Prevention of Smoke Circulation | 20/10/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0036 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: October 20, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Prevention of Smoke Circulation Keywords: Smoke, Duct-Type Smoke Detector, Fire Damper Building Code Reference(s): 9.32.3.2.(4)& (5), 3.1.8.10, 9.10.9.14.(4), 9.10.9.6.(14), 9.10.13.13.(1) & (2) Question: 1. Where a heating or ventilation duct system in a house with a secondary suite is required to be designed and installed to prevent circulation of smoke upon a signal from a duct-type smoke detector, is shut-down of the system fan sufficient to comply with this requirement? 2. Is a fire damper required in the duct described in question 1, where the duct penetrates the fire separation between suites in (a) an unsprinklered building? (b) a sprinklered building? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Sentence 9.32.1.2.(2) requires a self-contained heating season ventilation system serving a single dwelling unit or a house with a secondary suite to comply with Subsection 9.32.3. Sentence 9.32.3.2.(4) requires a heating or ventilation system in a house with a secondary suite to be designed and installed to prevent the circulation of smoke upon a signal from a duct-type smoke detector. There is no specific requirement for smoke dampers in this system. There is a similar requirement in Sentence 9.10.18.5.(1) that applies to other buildings regulated under Division B, Part 9, but it is applicable only to recirculating air-handling systems. Since Sentence 9.10.18.5.(1) does not address non-recirculating systems, there is no requirement for duct type detectors in those systems. Fans in non-recirculating systems could be off or on at any time. Therefore, the Code requirements do not address non-powered movement of smoke through a duct system in a Part 9 building. The condition where a fan shuts down on a signal from a duct-type smoke detector is similar, since there will be no powered air movement through the duct. (a) Yes, in most cases a fire damper is required in an unsprinklered building. Sentence 9.10.9.14.(4) requires a fire separation between dwelling units in a house with a secondary suite. The required fire-resistance rating of this fire separation varies depending on the installation of sprinklers or smoke alarms, with no fire-resistance rating permitted only if the building is sprinklered. With one exception, Sentence 9.32.3.2.(5) requires fire dampers installed in accordance with Article 3.1.8.10, at ducts penetrating fire separations. The exception refers to Sentence 9.10.9.6.(14) which waives the requirement for fire dampers in ducts in a house with a secondary suite but only where the ducts are noncombustible and serve only one fire compartment. If the duct serves both the secondary suite and the main suite, fire dampers are required except as noted below. Also, an additional waiver is permitted by Sentence 9.10.13.13.(2). A fire damper is not required where a noncombustible duct pierces a fire separation provided the duct has a melting point not below 760 C (i.e. a steel duct), the duct has a cross-sectional area less than 130 cm2, and the duct supplies only air-conditioning or combined air-conditioning and heating units discharging air at not more than 1.2 m above the floor. (b) No, a fire damper is not required in a sprinklered building. Sentence 9.10.13.13.(1) requires fire dampers at ducts penetrating fire separations only where the fire separations are required to have a fire-resistance rating. This Sentence is not cross-referenced from Sentence 9.32.3.2.(5) which otherwise requires fire dampers at fire separations [see the response to question 2(a)], but it applies to fire separations in general. Clause 9.10.9.14.(4)(d) states that, in a house with a secondary suite, the fire separation between suites does not require a fire-resistance rating if the building is sprinklered. Therefore, in accordance with Sentence 9.10.13.13.(1), fire dampers are not required at fire separations between dwelling units in a sprinklered house with a secondary suite. Some of the references in this Interpretation were part of a BCBC revision that came into effect in December 2019. In the BCBC revision, A-9.32.1.2.(2) in the Notes recommends that separate ventilation systems be provided for each dwelling unit in a house with a secondary suite, although it is noted that separate systems are more expensive and may be difficult to provide in an existing building. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0035 | Fire Protection of Emergency Electrical Conductors | 17/12/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0035 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: December 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire Protection of Emergency Electrical Conductors Keywords: Emergency Power, Fire Separations Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.7.9, 3.2.7.10 Question: Sentence 3.2.7.9.(1) requires a minimum 2 h power supply from an emergency generator for certain building systems in some types of buildings. Is this intended to supersede the requirement of Sentence 3.2.7.10.(2) for a 1 h fire separation for emergency electrical conductors? Interpretation: No. Sentence 3.2.7.9.(1) requires an emergency power supply from a generator to operate under full load for at least 2 h for the systems specified in that Sentence. Sentence 3.2.7.10.(1) summarizes the different applications for emergency electrical conductors, in Clauses (a) through (c). Sentence 3.2.7.10.(2) requires the emergency conductors identified in Clauses 3.2.7.10.(1)(a) and (b) to either provide a circuit integrity rating of at least 1 h in conformance with CAN/ULC-S139, or to be located in a service space that is separated from the remainder of the building by fire separations of at least 1 h. Sentence 3.2.7.9.(3) refers to similar requirements for the emergency conductors identified in Clause 3.2.7.9.(1)(c), which are for mechanical systems that serve areas of refuge in hospitals and similar facilities, or contained use areas, but the required minimum circuit integrity rating or fire separation is 2 h instead of 1 h. Many of the conductors identified in Sentence 3.2.7.10.(1) are also part of the systems referenced in Sentence 3.2.7.9.(1) as requiring a 2 h emergency power supply from a generator. Since most of these conductors are specifically referenced in Sentences 3.2.7.10.(1) and (2) as requiring 1 h circuit integrity or 1 h fire separation, they do not require 2 h circuit integrity or 2 h fire separation. The generator is still required to supply emergency power for at least 2 h but this does not change the required circuit integrity rating or fire-resistance rating of the fire separation. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0034 | Soil-or-Waste Pipe Serving as a Wet Vent | 26/11/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0034 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: November 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Soil-or-Waste Pipe Serving as a Wet Vent Keywords: Wet Vent, Soil-or-Waste Pipe, Vent Pipe Building Code Reference(s): 2.5.2.1.(1), Division A - 1.4.1.2.(1) Question: Is the wet vent illustrated by Example A on page 2 compliant with BCPC provisions (assuming that it is sized appropriately)? Interpretation: No (considering the possible historical permission below). The only definition contained in the BCPC that is applicable to the dry vent in this diagram is the general defined term ''vent pipe". In light of this fact, there are no BCPC provisions provided to size this vent. Other than additional circuit vents, relief vents, offset relief vents, yoke vents, individual vents and dual vents, a hydraulic load and developed length is required to size a vent pipe. The vent in the diagram is not defined as any of the foregoing defined vent pipes. Clause 2.5.2.1.(1)(g) appears to imply that a wet vent requires a continuous vent, however, the continuous vent that serves a wet vented stack must also be named a stack vent. With this reasoning the only way to make the installation compliant with a literal interpretation of the BCPC would be to install a 45° elbow on the wet vent prior to the connection for the trap arm and vent connection (as illustrated by Example 8). This would then make the soil-or-waste pipe serving as a wet vent nominally vertical and the vent would then be defined as a continuous vent. Historically the wet vent installation as shown in Example A on page two has been accepted by local authorities. The vent pipe shown would be sized in accordance with Table 2.5.7.1., based on the size of the largest trap served by the wet vent. The Committee recognizes the fact that a Code change proposal is necessary and will be communicating this fact to the appropriate bodies. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0033 | Protection of Exterior Fixtures From the Effects of Freezing | 17/09/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0033 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Protection of Exterior Fixtures From the Effects of Freezing Keywords: Fixture, Piping, Freezing, Protection Against Building Code Reference(s): BCPC - 2.3.5.4.(1), 2.6.1.4.(1)(b) Question: Where a sink is installed exterior to a building, what is required to protect the piping from the effects of freezing in accordance with Sentence 2.3.5.4.(1)? Interpretation: There are a number of methods to protect the piping serving an exterior fixture such as a sink located on a deck adjacent to a building. The potable water lines (hot and cold) may be serviced by stop and waste cocks located inside the conditioned space of the building as referenced in Sentence 2.6.1.4.(1)(b). Another solution may be to heat trace and insulate the water distribution piping that supplies this exterior fixture. Protecting the drainage system serving this exterior fixture from the effects of freezing may be accomplished by either removing the p-trap or simply draining the water from the trap. If the exterior fixture or trap arm is located near an opening to the building, such as a door or window which may be opened, steps must be taken to prevent the entry of sewer gas into the building. Maintenance instructions should be provided to the homeowner in this regard. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0032 | Guards for Exterior Stairs Adjacent to Windows in a Dwelling Unit | 21/01/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0032 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: January 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Guards for Exterior Stairs Adjacent to Windows in a Dwelling Unit Keywords: Guard, height Building Code Reference(s): 9.8.8.1.(1),(6) & (7), 9.8.8.3.(3) & (4) Question: This project is a Part 9 residential building that contains an exterior stair that serves a single dwelling unit. This stair is adjacent to an exterior window of the dwelling unit. 1. Is a guard required between the exterior stair and the adjacent window? 2. If so, can the guard be 900 mm high? Interpretation: 1. Yes (with conditions) Clause 9.8.8.1.(1)(a) requires a guard on each side of a stair that is not protected by a wall when the difference in elevation between the walking surface (i.e. the stair tread) and the adjacent surface (i.e. the interior floor level of the dwelling unit adjacent to the stair) is more than 600 mm. If this difference in elevation exceeds 600mm, a guard would be required. Except as permitted by Sentence 9.8.8.1.(7), Sentence 9.8.8.1.(6) requires that when glazing is installed adjacent to a stair, ramp or landing, and the glazing extends lower than 1070 mm above the walking surface of the stair treads, the glazing must be protected with a guard that is 1070 mm high. Alternatively, the window itself can be non-openable and be designed to resist guard loading as required by Article 4.1.5.14. 2. Yes (with conditions) The exception to Sentence 9.8.8.1.(6) in Sentence 9.8.8.1.(7) states that "in dwelling units" the height of such a guard can be lowered from 1070 mm to 900 mm. The term "in dwelling units" implies that this exception only applies to interior stairs, which is not consistent with the requirements of Article 9.8.8.3. for height of exterior guards. Sentence 9.8.8.3.(3) states that exterior guards that serve a single dwelling unit can be 900 mm high when the potential fall is less than 1800 mm. Sentence 9.8.8.3.(4) states that, except for required exit stairs, the height of guards at flights of steps in both interior and exterior stairs can be 900 mm. In order to be consistent with the requirements of Articles 9.8.8.1. and 9.8.8.3. the protection of the glazing adjacent to an exterior stair with either a guard or a non-openable window that is designed to resist guard loading can be 900 mm high, provided that the exterior stair is not a required exit. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0031 | Ventilation for Bedrooms in Dwelling Units | 21/01/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0031 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: January 21, 2020 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Ventilation for Bedrooms in Dwelling Units Keywords: Passive, air vents, bedrooms Building Code Reference(s): 9.5.1.2.; Table 9.32.2.2.; 9.32.3.4.(6) Question: This project is a Part 9 sprinklered multi-family residential building with dwelling units that contain bedrooms that have no exterior windows. The dwelling units meet the requirements of Clause 9.32.3.4.(6)(a) to permit the use of natural ventilation. The bedroom has a 0.5 sq.m. permanent opening to the living room, and the living room is provided with passive vents to the outdoors for natural ventilation as described in Sentence 9.32.3.4.(6). Is it acceptable to provide natural ventilation to the bedroom using the passive vents located in the living room? Interpretation: No Subclause 9.32.3.4.(6)(b)(i) clearly states that dedicated inlets to supply air passively from the outdoors must be located in each bedroom and at least one common area. It is not acceptable to indirectly supply the outdoor air to the bedroom from the living room' s passive vents via the opening between the living room and the bedroom. Note that Table 9.32.2.2. does permit bedrooms that are part of a "combinationroom" to be provided with natural ventilation to the "combination room". These dwelling units do not meet the criteria for "combinationrooms" as described in Article 9.5.1.2. since the opening between the bedroom and the living room is less than 3 sq.m. and less than 40% of the area of the wall separating the bedroom from the living room. Therefore, indirect natural venting of the bedrooms is not permitted. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0030 | Fire Protection of Distribution Panels and Conductors for Emergency Lighting | 17/12/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0030 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: December 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Fire Protection of Distribution Panels and Conductors Subject: for Emergency Lighting Keywords: Emergency Lighting, Emergency Conductors Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.7.10 Question: Do the requirements for protection of emergency lighting distribution panels and conductors as stated in Sentences 3.2.7.10.(10) and (11) apply only in high buildings? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 3.2.7.10.(1) states that electrical and emergency conductors referred to in Clauses (a) to (c) shall conform to the requirements stated in Sentences (2) to (11). In those Clauses, emergency lighting is referenced only in Clause (a), which applies only to conductors located within buildings identified in Article 3.2.6.1, which are high buildings. Clauses (b) and (c) may apply to other buildings (non-high buildings), but they refer only to conductors for fire pumps and certain mechanical systems, not for emergency lighting. Sentence 3.2.7.10.(10) requires a 1 h fire separation for a service room containing a distribution panel that serves emergency lighting units on other storeys. Sentence 3.2.7.10.(11) requires fire protection in accordance with Sentence 3.2.7.10.(2) for conductors that serve emergency lighting units located on other storeys. Both of these Sentences are applicable as referenced in Sentence 3.2.7.10.(1), which is interpreted to mean that they are applicable only in high buildings. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0028 | Structural Fire Protection | 26/11/2018 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0028 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: November 26, 2018 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Structural Fire Protection Keywords: Fire protection, steel members, wholly or partly Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.2.3.(1)(g) Question: If the loadbearing steel columns supporting a fire-rated assembly are located entirely within the un rated exterior wall, are they required to be fire-protected? Interpretation: Yes The intent of 3.2.2.3 is ''to exempt from the application of 3.2.2.1., which relates to fire protection, certain non-combustible building elements that are not critical to the stability of the building's structural framework." 3.2.2.3.(1)(g) exempts fire protection of loadbearing steel members that are wholly or partly outside a building face in a building not more than 4 storeys in building height and classified as Group A, 8, C, D or F, Division 3 major occupancy provided the members are not less than 1 m away from any unprotected opening in an exterior wall or shielded from heat radiation in the event of fire within the building by construction that will provide the same degree of protection that would be necessary if the member was located inside the building. An exterior wall that have no fire-resistance rating is considered as an unprotected opening. If the steel members are entirely within the exterior wall or less than 1 m. away from the exterior wall they are still required to have the fire-resistance rating as per 3.2.2. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0027 | Height Factor Ax in Table 4.1.8.18. | 15/10/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0027 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Height Factor Ax in Table 4.1.8.18. Keywords: Height factor, Ax Building Code Reference(s): Question: 4.1.8.2.(1), Table 4.1.8.18. When a water storage tank is fastened directly to the slab on grade at ground level, is the Height Factor Ax = 1.0? 2. Is the maximum possible value for Ax = 3.0? 1. Yes Ax is defined in Sentence 4.1.8.2.(1) as the response amplification factor to account for type of attachment of mechanical/electrical equipment as defined in Sentence 4.1.8.18.(1). hx is defined in Sentence 4.1.8.2.(1) as the height above the base to level X, where the base of the structure is the level at which horizontal motions are considered to be imparted to the structure. Level i is defined as any level in the building, i = 1.0 for for first level above the base Level n is defined as the level that is uppermost in the main portion of the structure li.e. the main roof level). Level xis defined as the level that is under design consideration. Since the water storage tank is fastened directly to the slab on grade, the hx factor would = 0. Therefore Ax= 1 + 2 x (hx / hn) = 1 + 2 x (0 / hn) = 1.0 2. No If the water storage tank were located on the roof at a height of 30m above the ground, the hx / hn factor would= 1.0 Therefore Ax= 1 + 2 x (hx / hn) = 1 + 2 x (30 / 30) = 3.0 If the water storage tank were located in a service room above the roof level at a height of 33m above the ground, the hx / hn factor would = 33/30 = 1.1 Therefore Ax = 1 + 2 x (hx / hn) = 1 + 2 x (33 / 30) = 3.2 | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0026 | Schedule B - Item 2.1 - Seismic Restraint | 15/10/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0026 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Schedule B - Item 2.1 - Seismic Restraint Keywords: Schedule B, structural components, seismic restraint Building Code Reference(s): QuestIon: 3.2.1.2., 9.10.4.3. Item 2.1 of Schedule B states "Structural capacity of structural components of the building, including anchorage and seismic restraint". Section 15 of the Guide to the Letters of Assurance in the BC Building Code 2006 dated December 2010, describes the approach for fulfilling the requirements for anchorage and seismic restraint for "non-structural elements in buildings, including architectural, mechanical, plumbing, fire suppression and electrical components" in Items 1.6, 3.6, 4.7, 5.9 and 6.5 of Schedule B. The Guide does not provide any guidance on Item 2.1 of Schedule B. Is Item 2.1 of Schedule B intended to apply to non-structural elements? Interpretation: No The structural engineer of record is responsible for the structural components as shown on their structural drawings and supporting documents that are submitted to the AHJ for a building permit. The anchorage and seismic restraint in Item 2.1 of Schedule B applies only to structural elements that are shown on their structural drawings and supporting documents. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0025 | Required Relief Valves for Indirect Service Water Heaters | 15/10/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0025 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: October 15, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Required Relief Valves for Indirect Service Water Heaters Keywords: Relief Valves, Indirect Service Water Heaters, Storage Type Service Water Heaters Building Code Reference(s): 2.6.1.7.(4). Question: What relief valves are required as safety devices for an indirect service water heater? Interpretation: An indirect service water heater derives its heat from a heating medium such as warm air, steam or hot water. It differs in this way from a storage-type service water heater which has the fuel (commonly either gas or electric), as an integral part of the appliance. Sentence 2.6. i .7.(4) requires an indirect service water heater to be equipped with a pressure-relief valve and any storage tank that forms part of the system to be equipped with a temperature-relief valve. It is quite common to have the heat exchanger and storage tank combined and therefore both of the above safety devices would be required. This situation is similar to the storage-type service water heater other that there is no fuel supplied directly to the appliance. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0024 | Smoke Venting for Basement Storage Garage Levels of a High Building | 17/12/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0024 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: December 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Smoke venting for basement storage garage levels of a high building Keywords: Smoke venting, high building, basement, storage garage Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.6.6.(1), Note A-3.2.6.6.(1), 3.2.6.7.(2)(i)(i), Note A-3.2.6.7.(2), 3.2.7.9(.1)(d) Question: 1. Basement storage garage levels below a high building are typically interconnected by vehicle ramps as permitted by Sentence 3.2.8.2.(2). Is smoke venting in the basement storage garage of a high building required to be controlled on a floor by floor basis? 2. Is the smoke venting in the basement storage garage of a high building required to be actuated automatically? Interpretation: 1. Yes. Sentence 3.2.6.6.(1) requires means of smoke venting of each floor area to the outdoors to be provided by windows, wall panels, smoke shafts, or the building exhaust system - See Notes to Part 3, A-3.2.6.6.(1). Notes to Part 3, A-3.2.6.6.(9) indicates that the building air handling system may be used for smoke venting, provided the system can maintain an exhaust to the outdoors at the rate of 6 air changes per hour from any floor area, and emergency power is provided to the exhaust fans per Clause 3.2.7.9.(1)(d). 2. No. Assuming there is no continuously staffed auxiliary equipment control centre, Subclause 3.2.6.7.(2)(i)(i) requires that a high building central alarm and control facility provide means as appropriate to actuate auxiliary equipment identified in Article 3.2.6.6 (venting to aid in firefighting). This does not specify manual or automatic actuation. Manual controls should be provided so that the responding fire department are able to control the smoke venting system based on their specific assessment of conditions and firefighting operations. However, smoke control systems that are also actuated automatically are deemed to meet the intent of Subclause 3.2.6.7.(2)(i)(i). Notes to Part 3, A-3.2.6.7.(2) clarifies that "depending on the method of mechanical venting and air control that is selected for the building, additional controls may be required at the central alarm and control facility. These additional controls include those with a capability of opening closures to vents in shafts, stopping air-handling systems, and initiating mechanical air supply to stair shafts." Consultation with the local fire department is advisable on the smoke venting system design and controls. Refer also to past BC Building Code interpretation 12-0031 on controls for auxiliary equipment in a high building. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0023 | Part 3 and Part 9 Buildings above Basement Storage Garages | 20/10/2020 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0023 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: Building Code Edition: Subject: Keywords: Building Code Reference(s): Question: 1. If a project has multiple Part 9 buildings above a basement storage garage and the storage garage exceeds 1 storey or exceeds 600 sq.m. in area, can the storage garage be considered a separate building in accordance with Article 9.10.4.3.? 2. If a project has both Part 9 buildings and Part 3 buildings above a basement storage garage, can the basement storage garage be considered a separate building in accordance with Article 3.2.1.2.? Interpretation: 1. Yes Sentence 9.10.1.3.(3) requiresa basement that is more than 1 storey, or more than 600 sq.m. in area to be designed to Part 3. Article 9.10.4.3. permits a basement storage garage to be considered as a separate building when all the buildings above it are Part 9 buildings. So the basement storage garage itself must be designed to Part 3, but the buildings above and the 2 hour fire rated slab above the storage garage can be designed to Part 9 based on Article 9.10.4.3. 2. Yes (with conditions) If some of the buildings above a basement storage garage are Part 3 buildings, the storage garage must be designed to Part 3. If the basement storage garage is considered as a separate building for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.2., it must be designed to Article 3.2.1.2. Sentence 3.1.10.3.(1) permits a firewall to terminate on top of a concrete slab which is constructed as a fire separation with a 2 hour fire resistance rating in accordance with Article 3.2.1.2. So if the Part 9 building is separated from the Part 3 building with a firewall, and if there are no direct connections between the Part 9 building and the basement storage garage, the Part 9 buildings can be designed to Part 9 for all aspects (i.e. not simply for construction requirements per Subsection 3.2.2.). This similar concept could also be used if the Part 9 and Part 3 buildings are spatially separated in accordance with Subsection 3.2.3. rather than separated with a firewall. If there are direct connections between the Part 9 building and the basement storage garage, there are many other fire and life safety provisions to consider, particularly if the Part 3 building is a high building per Subsection 3.2.6. This condition would likely require an alternative solution which addresses all the fire and life safety aspects. It should be noted that if the firewall that terminates on top of a concrete slab which is constructed as a fire separation in accordance with Article 3.2.1.2. is required to have a 4 hour fire resistance rating per Sentence 3.1.10.2.(1), then the floor assembly , roof assembly, bearing walls and columns that support this firewall also requires a 4 hour fire resistance rating. Refer also to a previous Interpretation 98-0136 as attached. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0022 | Occupancy Classification of a Real Estate Presentation/Sales Centre | 21/05/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0022 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: May 21, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Occupancy Classification of a Real Estate Subject: Presentation/Sales Centre Keywords: Occupancy, business and personal service Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.2.1.(1 ), Table 3.1.2.1., Note A-3.1.2 .1.(1 ) Question: 1. What is the occupancy classification for a real estate presentation/sales centre? Interpretation: Business and Personal Service, Group D Table 3.1.2.1. classified business and personal services occupancies as Group D occupancy. A real estate presentation/sales centre usually provides the developer with a venue to show potential buyers the eventual product with scaled architectural models, pictures, floor plans, finishing material display and/or suite mockup. Usually there are a few workstations/offices to complete the business transaction. The business operation, occupant load and combustible content are similar to offices. It is concluded that a real estate presentation/sales centre is classified as business and personal services, Group D occupancy. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0021 | Firestopping at Noncombustible Outlet Boxes | 26/06/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0021 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: June 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Firestopping at Noncombustible Outlet Boxes Keywords: Firestopping Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.9.4.(1) and (2) Question: 1. Is the reference in Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) to "a membrane forming part of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating" intended to apply only to membranes of vertical fire separations? 2. Does the statement in Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) that "noncombustible outlet boxes are permitted to be waived" mean that the requirement for firestopping is waived if the outlet box installation meets the specified criteria. Interpretation: 1. No. Sentence 3.1.9.4.(1) requires FT firestopping at outlet boxes that penetrate the membrane of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating. Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) states that "... noncombustible outlet boxes that penetrate a vertical fire separation or a membrane forming part of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating are permitted to be waived... " provided the installation meets the criteria stated in that Sentence. The waiver for noncombustible outlet boxes in fire separations is limited to vertical fire separations. However, the reference to membranes is not clear whether the waiver applies to membranes in any fire separations or only in vertical fire separations. Sentences 3.1.9.4.(1) and (2) contain new requirements that were adopted from the National Building Code 2015. Prior to adoption, these changes were circulated for public review and comment in fall 2013. In those proposed changes, the rationale for the new Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) includes the statement "A new Sentence for noncombustible electrical outlet boxes as per International Building Code is introduced." This is assumed to refer to the edition of the IBC that was current at the time, which was the 2012 edition. Sections 714.3.2 and 714.4.1.2 of the 2012 IBC specify protection of membrane penetrations of walls or horizontal assemblies, respectively, that are required to have a fire-resistance rating. The requirements to allow membrane penetrations by steel electrical outlet boxes are the same for membranes of both walls and horizontal assemblies, and are the same as adopted in Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) of the NBC 2015 except that the NBC allows a larger area for an individual outlet box. Since the NBC code change proposal references the IBC, and the IBC regulates penetrations of vertical and horizontal membranes in the same manner, it is interpreted that the waiver stated in Sentence 3.1.9.4 .(2) applies to membranes in both vertical and horizontal fire separations. 2. Yes. Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) states that noncombustible outlet boxes are permitted to be waived. However, it is not clear whether this waiver refers to the firestopping, or only to the FT rating of the firestopping. The NBC code change proposal referenced in the response to question 1 contains the following additional statement referring to Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2): N it establishes boundaries for the size of the openings permitted in a fire separation without the need for a fire stop". Also, there has been a revision to the NBC 2015 which is proposed to be adopted as a revision in the BCBC 2018. This revision clarifies the intent of Sentence 3.1.9.4.(2) by deleting the phrase "are permitted to be waived" and replacing it with "need not conform to Sentence (1)". Based on the code change rationale and on the NBC revision, a noncombustible outlet box that complies with the criteria of Sentence 3.1.9.4 .(2) does not require firestopping of any kind. Note that the requirement of Sentence 3.1.9.4.(3) for the protection between outlet boxes on opposite sides of a vertical fire separation, or the minimum distance between these outlet boxes, must also be satisfied. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0020 | Building Service Penetrations at Contiguous Stairs | 26/06/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0020 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 6 Interpretation Date: June 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject Building Service Penetrations at Contiguous Stairs Keywords: Contiguous, stairs, service penetrations Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.4.4.(2) & (3), A-3.2.6.2.(2) Question: This project includes a below grade stair that discharges directly outside at Level 1. There is an above grade stair where its stair enclosure is directly above the below grade stair. The above grade stair also discharges directly outside at Level 1 via a shared exit corridor. Refer to Drawing #3 & #4 on Pages 5 & 6. 1. Does the ceiling assembly of the below grade stair at Level 1, which also acts as the floor assembly of the above grade stair create a "contiguous stair" between the above and below grade stairs? 2. Can a standpipe riser penetrate the ceiling assembly of the below grade stair at Level 1, which also acts as the floor assembly of the above grade stair? 1. No Although the term "contiguous stair" is not a defined term in the building code, it is generally considered to be either 2 scissor stairs or 2 side by side stairs with a common wall for the full height of the stair enclosures as illustrated on Pages 3 & 4. Also, 2 contiguous stairs generally serve the same floor area, so penetrations between the 2 exit stairs would compromise both means of egress from a floor area. 2. Yes Sentence 3.4.4.4.(2) requires that exits within scissor stairs and other contiguous stairs be separated from each other with a smoke-tight fire separation with a fire resistance rating not less than that required for the floor assembly through which they pass. Sentence 3.4.4.4.(3) prohibits penetrations through floor or wall assemblies that separate scissor stairs and other contiguous stairs such as doorways, ductwork or piping. Since the above and below grade stairs are not considered to be "contiguous stairs", the requirements of Sentence 3.4.4.4.(3) do not apply. Since the above grade stair in this example serves a different floor area from the below grade stair, any failure of the firestop system at the penetration through the shared floor/ceiling assembly would not compromise every exit from the floor area. · Notes to Part 3 - A-3.2.6.2.(2) clearly permits a below grade stair and an above grade stair to discharge through a common exit corridor to the exterior. As stated in A-3.2.6.2.(2) - 2a, the below grade stair cannot pass though the floor above the lowest exit storey. Obviously, the doors from the 2 stairs to this common exit corridor would compromise the integrity of the fire/smoke separation between the 2 exit stairs much more significantly than a standpipe riser penetration. This supports the interpretation that superimposed above and below grade stairs. are not intended to be treated as contiguous stairs for the purposes of Article 3.4.4.4. Refer to the following drawings: Drawing #1 - section of typical scissor stair which is one type of contiguous stair. Pipe penetrations are not permitted through the stair floor slabs that separate 2 separate exit stairs unless the vertical pipe riser is located with a fire rated shaft enclosure with a fire resistance rating equal to the exit stair wall fire resistance rating. Some AHJs may also accept an alternative solution utilizing an enhanced firestop system at the pipe penetration for standpipe risers. Drawing #2 - plan of back to back set of stairs which is a second type of contiguous stair. Pipe penetrations are not permitted through the common shared wall that separates the 2 adjacent exit stairs. Some AHJs may accept an alternative solution utilizing an enhanced firestop system at the pipe penetration through this shared wall for standpipe risers. Drawing #3 - ·plan of below grade exit stair beneath an above grade exit stair with a shared exit corridor serving both exit stairs. This configuration is not considered to be contiguous stairs for the purposes of Article 3.4.4.4. Drawing #4 - section of below grade exit stair beneath an above grade exit stair. This configuration is not considered to be contiguous stairs for the purposes of Article 3.4.4.4. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0019 | Motorized Fire/Smoke Dampers in High Residential Buildings | 26/11/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0019 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: November 26,_2_019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 . t· Motorized fire/smoke dampers in high residential Subject: Motorized fire/smoke dampers in high residential buildings Keywords: Fire dampers, smoke dampers, high residential buildings Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.8.7.(1), 3.1.8.7.(2)(a), 3.1.8.9.(2)(a)(iii), 3.2.6.2.(6), 3.2.7.9.(1)(c), Question: Are combination smoke/fire motorized dampers required at the air-transfer openings on each floor of a high residential building for the public corridor air supply ducts? Interpretation: No (with conditions) Sentence 3.1.8.7.(1) requires a fire damper at air-transfer openings that penetrate an assembly required to be a fire separation. The vertical duct shaft that supplies air to a public corridor to separate floor areas is required to be a fire separation, so non-motorized fusible link fire dampers at the air-transfer openings on each floor level of a high building would satisfy this requirement. Except as permitted by Article 3.1.8.9., Sentence 3.1.8.7.(2)(a) requires a smoke damper at air transfer openings that penetrate an assembly required to be a fire separation between a vertical duct shaft and a public corridor. Sub-clause 3.1.8.9.(2)(a)(iii) waives the requirement for a smoke damper for ducts or air transfer openings that form part of a smoke control system. The ducts must be noncombustible branch ducts having a melting point above 760° C. Except as required by Article 3.2.4.12., Sentence 3.2.6.2.(6) requires that air-handling systems used to provide make up air to public corridors serving residential suites shall not shut down automatically upon activation of the fire alarm system so as to maintain corridor pressurization. Article 3.2.4.12. requires the corridor make up air fan that serves more than 1 storey to shut down if a duct-type smoke detector within the supply duct is activated. Since Sentence 3.2.6.2.(6) requires that air-handling systems used to provide make up air to public corridors serving residential suites remain running during a fire alarm, this air-handling system could be considered to be part of a smoke control system, provided that it meets the design requirements for smoke control systems including: • The fans must be provided with an emergency power supply from an emergency generator per 3.2.7.9.(1)(c) which is capable of operating under full load for not less than 2 hours, • The vertical corridor supply duct must be enclosed in a vertical service space which is constructed as a fire separation with a 2 hour fire resistance rating similar to a smoke shaft as described in Notes to Part 3 - A-3.2.6.6.(1) - (3)(a), and • The corridor supply fan must always remain running to maintain a positive pressure between the vertical duct shaft and the corridor. • A manual control switch for the corridor supply fan is provided at the central alarm control facility. Therefore, as per Sub-clause 3.1.8.9.(2)(a)(iii), motorized smoke dampers are not required at air-transfer openings between corridor supply duct shaft and a public corridor, provided the building is a high building, the corridor serves residential suites and the ducts are noncombustible having a melting point above 760° C. These air-transfer openings are required to be protected with non-motorized fusible link fire dampers per Sentence 3.1.8.7.(1) and Article 3.1.8.10. A duct-type smoke detector is also required within the duct per Article 3.2.4.12. The Intent Statement for Sentence 3.1.8.9.(2) Is as follows: To exempt certain branch ducts from the application of Sentence 3.1.8.7.(2), which would otherwise require smoke dampers or combination smoke/fire dampers, on the basis that the lack of smoke dampers or combination smoke/fire dampers in this case will not lead to a significant spread of smoke. The Intent Statement for Sentence 3.2.6.2.(6) is as follows: To limit the probability that smoke from a fire in a suite will spread into the public corridor, which could lead to delays or ineffectiveness in emergency response operations, which could lead to the spread of fire beyond its point of origin and delay evacuation or impede moving to a safe place, which could lead to harm to persons. It should be noted that motorized smoke dampers are required in low rise buildings at air-transfer openings..,2n each floor for the public corridor air supply ducts | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0018 | Determination of Grade for Buildings above a 3.2.1.2 Basement Storage Garage | 25/06/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0018 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: June 25, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Determination of Grade for Buildings above a 3.2.1.2. Subject: Basement Storage Garage Keywords: Grade, basement storage garage, superstructures Building Code Reference(s): Question: -3.2.-1.2. For buildings that are located above a basement storage garage per Article 3.2.1.2., is the grade of each building above the basement storage garage determined separately based on the definition of "grade"? Interpretation: Yes Article 3.2.1.2. permits a basement storage garage to be treated as a separate building for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.2. and Sentences 3.2.5.12.(2) and (3). Although not specifically stated in Article 3.2.1.2., this means that buildings that are located above the basement storage garage can also be treated as separate buildings for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.2. and Sentences 3.2.5.12.(2) and (3). Subsection 3.2.2. includes the following aspects: • Major occupancy classification • Building height • Building area • Type of construction • Sprinklers or no sprinklers • Fire separations and fire resistance rating of floor assemblies • Fire resistance ratings of roof assemblies. • Fire resistance ratings of bearing walls, columns and arches Sentences 3.2.5.12.(2) and (3) permit the use of NFPA 13R or NFPA 130 for the superstructure buildings if the size and occupancy meet the conditions of their use. Since "building height'' is one of the aspects included in Subsection 3.2.2., the calculation of building height can be calculated separately for each building that is located above a basement storage garage that is designed to Article 3.2.1.2. Building height for each building is calculated using grade. Grade is defined in Article 1.4.1.2. as follows: Grade means the lowest of the average levels of finished ground adjoining each exterior wall of a building, except that localized depressions need not be considered in the determination of average levels of finished ground. (See First storey and Note A-1.4.1.2.(1).) Since Article 3.2.1.2. permits the building height to be determined separately for each building, grade can also be determined separately for each building as the lowest of the average level of finished ground adjoining each exterior wan of each building. Refer to the drawings below which illustrates some examples for calculating grade for each building | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0017 | Highrise Measures with a 3.2.1.2 Basement Storage Garage | 16/04/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC FIie No: 18-0017 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: April 16, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Highrise Measures with a 3.2.1.2. Basement Storage Subject: Garage Keywords: High building, basement storage garage Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.1.2., 3.2.6. Question: This project consists of a 40m noncombustible high building plus a 3 storey combustible Part 3 building over top of the basement storage garage that is designed as a separate building per Article 3.2.1.2. 1. Must the basement storage garage be designed as a high building per Subsection 3.2.6.? 2. Must the 3 storey Part 3 combustible building be designed as a high building per Subsection 3.2.6.? 3. Do the requirements of Article 3.2.6.3. for "ConnectedBuildings" apply between the basement storage garage and the 40m noncombustible high bui!9ing? 4. Do the requirements of Article 3.2.6.3. for "ConnectedBuildings" apply between the basement storage garage and the 3 storey Part 3 combustible building? 5. Does the 3 storey Part 3 combustible building require a highrise fire alarm system c/w central alarm control facility and voice communication? Interpretation: 1. Yes Article 3.2.1.2. permits a basement storage garage to be treated as a separate building for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.2. and Sentences 3.2.5.12.(2) and (3). It does not permit the basement storage garage, or the buildings located above the storage garage to be treated as separate buildings for the purposes of Subsections 3.2.4. (fire alarms) or 3.2.6. (highrise measures). The basement storage garage must be designed to the highrise measures per Subsection 3.2.6. 2. Yes - see answer #1, which also applies to the 3 storey Part 3 combustible building. 3. No Since the basement storage garage cannot be treated as a separate building for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.6., the basement storage garage and the 40m noncombustible high building are treated as a single building. Therefore, the requirements of Article 3.2.6.3. do not apply. 4. No Since the basement storage garage cannot be treated as a separate building for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.6., the basement storage garage and the 3 storey Part 3 combustible building are treated as a single building. Therefore, the requirements of Article 3.2.6.3. do not apply. For the purposes of Subsection 3.2.6., the entire project is treated as a single building (any height, any area). 5. Yes Since the basement storage garage cannot be treated as a separate building for the purposes of Subsection 3.2.4. or 3.2.6., the 3 storey Part 3 building would require a highrise fire alarm system c/w central alarm control facility and voice communication. It should be noted that the 1992 BC Building Code included a "unique to BC" code change to Article 3.2.1.2. that permitted a basement storage garage to be treated as a separate building for the purposes of Subsections 3.2.2., 3.2.4. and 3.2.6. Many design professionals and AHJs think that this is the true intent of Article 3.2.1.2. and is more appropriate when there is a combination of high buildings and low buildings above a basement storage garage. Many AHJs are accepting alternative solution reports to justify not treating a 3 storey Part 3 low rise building as a high building with a highrise fire alarm system. Refer to Interpretation 18-0008 regarding Part 3 and Part 9 buildings above a 3.2.1.2. basement storage garage. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0016 | Accessibility Clearances for Dwelling Unit Entrance Doors in Apartment Buildings | 26/11/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC FIie No: 18-0016 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3 Interpretation Date: November 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Accessibility clearances for dwelling unit entrance doors, Subject: in apartment buildings Keywords: Apartments, accessibility, dwelling unit entrance, door clearances, power operated doors Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.1.(1)(a), 3.8.2.1.(1)(b), 3.8.2.1.(2),3.8.2.12, 3.8 .3.6.(6), 3.8.3.6.(11), 3.8.5.3.(1)(a), 3.8.5.3.(3). Question: 1. For apartment buildings, Clause 3.8.2.1.(1)(b) sets out the scope of required accessible path of travel from the building entrance(s). Are the unit entrance doors (typically swinging into the unit) also required to meet the accessible clearance requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) for the following: a) Standard dwelling units (not designed to be accessible or adaptable) b) Adaptable dwelling units c) Sleeping Rooms other than Hotels d) Hotel suites e) Dwelling units within apartment buildings, that are designed to be accessible 2. If a dwelling unit entrance door does require the clearances of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11), and these cannot be provided, is it acceptable to provide a power operated door? 3. If the answer to question 2. above is yes, must the power operated door comply with all the provisions of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(6)? Interpretation: 1.a) No. Clause 3.8.2.1.(1)(b) requires an accessible path of travel from accessible entrance(s) of the building throughout common areas, to parking areas, and passenger loading zones. Elevation changes for the common areas are also addressed in this Clause. However, the dwelling unit entrances themselves are not required to be designed for accessibility, unless the units are required by other regulations or standards to be accessible or adaptable. The dwelling unit entrance doors are private and are not considered to be part of the common areas of the apartment building. Therefore the door clearance requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) are not applicable for standard dwelling unit entrance doors, unless such dwelling units are required by other regulations or standards to be accessible or adaptable. 1.b) Yes. Subclause 3.8.2.1.(1)(a)(ii) indicates that adaptable units are subject to Section 3.8. Clause 3.8.5.1.(1)(a) requires 1 storey adaptable units in apartment buildings to comply with Subsection 3.8.5. Clause 3.8.5.3.(1)(a) and Sentence 3.8.5.3.(3) indicate Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) applies to the path of travel into the adaptable units, including the adaptable unit entrance doors. 1.c) Yes, to 1 in every 40 units or part thereof. As indicated in Subclause 3.8.2.1.(1)(a)(i) and Sentence 3.8.2.12.(2), where sleeping rooms and bed spaces are provided in residential clubs, schools and colleges, dormitories, 1 in every 40 units or part thereof are required to be designed to Articles 3.8.2.12 and 3.8.3.22. Sentence 3.8.2.12.(2) indicates that such designated units are subject to Subsection 3.8.3. This means the door clearance requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) are applicable for the 1 in every 40 units. An illustration of this is provided in Division B Notes to Part 3, A-3.8.3.22 . 1.d) Yes, to 1 in every 40 units or part thereof. Subclause 3.8.2.1.(1)(a)(i) and Sentence 3.8.2.12.(2) indicate that hotel suites (1 in every 40 or part thereof) are subject to Section 3.8. and Subsection 3.8.3. This means the door clearance requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) are applicable for the 1 in 40 units. An illustration of this is provided in Division B Notes to Part 3, A-3.8.3.22. 1.e) Yes. Within apartment buildings, dwelling units that are designed to be accessible pursuant to other regulations or standards, are required to be designed to Articles 3.8.2.12 and 3.8.3.22. Sentence 3.8.2.12.(2) indicates that such units are subject to Subsection 3.8.3. This means the door clearance requirements of Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) are applicable. An illustration of this is provided in Division B Notes to Part 3, A-3.8.3.22. 2. Yes. Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11) references Sentence 3.8.3.6.(6) (power operated doors) as an alternative to compliance with Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11). 3. Yes. This is an overly onerous requirement for dwelling unit entrance doors, however there are no stated exceptions to the various detail provisions if power operated doors are used as an alternative to compliance with Sentence 3.8.3.6.(11). Reference 5.2 of CSA 8651-12 "Accessible design for the built environment" can be used an alternative. This however, will not achieve a significantly different result, or substantially reduce the requirements. As required by Subclause 3.8.3.6.(6)(a)(iv)operating controls must be adjacent to and centred on either the-leAgth er the-width-of-a clear.floor-speee of- 1-350mm by-800mm. The location of the door opening controls can be located on the wall along the path of travel as one approaches the door, but as required by Subclause 3.8.3.6.(6)(a)(iii), must be not less than 600mm and not more than 1500mm from the door swing. The explanatory notes A-3.8.3.6.(6) and (7) indicate that where security is required; a key, card, or radio transmitter, meet the intent of the requirement for the power operator to be actuated by a pressure plate. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0015 | Stair Run Construction Tolerances for Public Stairs | 26/03/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0015 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Stair run construction tolerances for public stairs Keywords: Stair, run, construction tolerances, public stairs Building Code Reference(s): Div A-1.5.1.2.(1), Div B-3.4.6.8.(1), 3.4.6.8.(4) Question: Can public stairs have a run that varies between 275 mm to 285 mm within a single flight? Interpretation: No Sentence 3.4.6.8.(1) requires that public stairs must have a run of not less than 280 mm between successive steps. There are no exceptions within this sentence, so the 280 mm is the absolute minimum run that is permitted. Sentence 3.4.6.8.(4) permits construction tolerances for uniformity of stair runs of 5 mm between adjacent treads, and a maximum 10 mm between the deepest and shallowest treads in a single flight. This would mean that the dimension of runs within a flight could vary from 280 mm to 290 mm, provided that the variance between adjacent runs does not exceed 5mm. It should be noted that Article 6.4.6.1. of the CSA A23.1 reference standard for the design and construction of concrete stairs permits plus and minus construction tolerances for concrete stairs. As stated in Division A Sentence 1.5.1.2.(1), where there is a conflict between a reference standard and the building code, the building code governs. Therefore, the wording of Sentence 3.4.6.8.(1) of the BCBC supersedes this reference standard, so minus tolerances below 280 mm are not permitted. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0014 | Public Washroom Lavatory Faucet Automatic Shut-off Devices | 17/09/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0014 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Public Washroom Lavatory Faucet Automatic Shut-off Devices Keywords: Lavatory Faucet, Shut-offs, Automatic Shut-off Device Building Code Reference(s): BCPC - 2.2.10.6.(5) & BCBC 3.7.2.3.(4)(a)&(b) Question: Sentence 2.2.10.6.(5) of the BCPC requires each lavatory in a public washroom to be equipped with a device capable of automatically shutting off the flow of water when the device is not in use. Clause 3.7.2.3.(4)(b) in the BCBC permits manually controlled lavatory faucets. Are these two requirements in conflict with one another? Interpretation: No. Part 3 buildings that contain private bathrooms, such as hotels and condominiums, would not be subject to the requirements of Sentence 2.2.10.6.(5). The lavatory faucet in these bathrooms could be manually operated but would need to meet the accessibility requirements of 3.8.3.8.(1)(c). In any washroom deemed to be a public washroom, regardless of whether it is a Part 9 or Part 3 building, the lavatory faucet would be required to be equipped with an automatic shut-off device to satisfy the requirement of Sentence 2.2.10.6.(5). The Committee recognizes the fact that the word "public" in Sentence 2.2.10.6.(5) is not italicized and therefore is not a defined term. It would be reasonable to use the defined terms of "private use" and "public use" contained in the BCPC to determine which requirements of either Sentence 2.2.10.6.(5) and/ or Clause 3.7.2.3.(4)(b) are applicable. In addition, Clause 3.7.2.3.(4)(a) permits automatic operation of a lavatory faucet in a Part 3 building (both on and off) which would also comply with the requirement of Sentence 2.2.10.6.(5). | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0012 | Wet Venting of Fixtures with Trap Arms or Fixture Drains Larger than 2" | 16/04/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0012 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: April 16, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Wet Venting of Fixtures With Larger than 2" Keywords: Wet Vent, Trap Arms, Fixture Building Code Reference(s): 2.5.2.1.(1)(e), 2.5.8.1.(2) Question: Can fixtures with traps and trap arms 3" in size (e.g. - floor sink, funnel floor drain) be wet vented by another fixture in light of Clause 2.5.2.1.(1)(e)? Interpretation: Yes. Clause 2.5.2.1.(1)(e) states that "trap arms and fixture drains connected to the wet vent do not exceed 2 inches in size, except for connections from emergency floor drains ". The intent of this being that where a wet vent is already established, i.e., the wet vent is serving other fixtures and the connection of the fixture with a trap arm larger than 2" is upstream of these fixtures. The above Clause restricts the connection of trap arms and fixture drains greater than 2" (other than emergency floor drains) to a wet vent. The 3" trap arm/fixture drain does not tie into a wet vent; the pipe serving the other fixture only becomes a wet vent once this connection is made since the trap serving the floor sink is required to be protected by a vent. In effect, the 3" trap arm/fixture drain does not connect to a wet vent, but rather, the wet vent connects to the trap arm/fixture drain and Clause 2.5.2.1.(1)(e) does not apply (see diagrams on page 2). Lending more support to this interpretation is the fact that, in accordance with Sentence 2.5.8.1.(2), the hydraulic load of this 3" floor sink is not taken into consideration when determining the hydraulic load on the wet vent. It should be pointed out that a wet vent is a preferable installation to an individual dry vent as the action of the fixture draining into the soil or waste pipe will result in keeping the vent for the floor sink clear, sometimes referred to as "scouring". | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0010 | Remoteness of Exit for a Single Office Suite per Floor | 17/09/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0010 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: September 17, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Remoteness of exit for a single office suite per floor Keywords: exit, public corridor, suite, remoteness Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.2.3.(1) , (2) and (3), 1.4.1.2. Public corridor Question: Can a single office suite which extends across the entire floor plate and which is served by a corridor similar to a public corridor as described by Clause 3.4.2.3.(1)(a) be served by 2 exits that are remote from one another by not more than 9m? Interpretation: No. Public corridor is defined as a corridor that provides access to exit from more than one suite. A corridor that serves a single suite is not considered to be a public corridor. The 2 exits that serve a single office suite that extends across the entire floor plate must be remote from one another by minimum of ½ the maximum diagonal distance of the floor area, but not less than 9 m, as per Clause 3.4.2.3.(1)(b). Sentence 3.4.2.3.(2) waives the requirements of Sentence 3.4.2.3.(1) if the floor area is divided so that not more than 1/3 of the floor area is on one side of a fire separation wall and it is necessary to pass through this fire separation wall to travel from one exit to the other. It should be noted that the 9 m exit remoteness for public corridors serving multiple office suites may not be appropriate, particularly in sprinklered buildings, because Sentence 3.3.1.4.(4) waives the requirement for a fire separation between an office suite and a public corridor if the conditions of Sentence 3.3.1.4.(4) are met. The BCIC has sent NRC a request for a code change to address this anomaly. Some AHJ's may consider an alternative solution report to apply the 9 m exit remoteness between exits if the suite occupies an entire floor but includes a fire-rated corridor, similar to a public corridor, between the suite and the exit stairs. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0009 | Construction Type in a 3.2.1.2 Storage Garage | 26/11/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0009 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: November 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Construction Type in a 3.2.1.2. Storage Garage Keywords: Storage garage, separate building, combustible, noncombustible Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.4., 3.1.5., 3.2.1.2., 3.2.1.4., 3.2.2.15. Question: 1. If a basement storage garage is considered as a separate building per Article 3.2.1.2., and all the buildings above the storage garage are permitted to be combustible construction, must the entire storage garage be constructed as a noncombustible building per Subsection 3.1.5.? 2. Is exposed combustible piping permitted within such an underground storage garage? Interpretation: 1. No (with qualifications) Article 3.2.1.2. only requires the basement storage garage to have noncombustible construction for the following components: a. Floor assemblies above the basement storage garage (i.e. the Level 1 floor slab) b. Roof assemblies above the basement storage garage (i.e. the Level 1 roof deck slab) c. The perimeter exterior walls of the basement storage garage that are located above the adjoining finished ground level. d. Loadbearing walls, columns and arches supporting the Level 1 noncombustible floor and roof assemblies as described in (a) & (b), or a noncombustible wall assembly as described in (c). All other components that form part of this basement storage garage could be designed to Subsection 3.1.4. using combustible construction. Note that Article 3.2.1.4. only applies to the floor assembly immediately above a basement (i.e. the Level 1 floor assembly). It does not regulate floor assemblies in multi-level basements below the Level 1 floor assembly. Since Article 3.2.1.2. is a more restrictive requirement than Article 3.2.1.4., Article 3.2.1.2. would govern the design of the floor assembly immediately above a basement using noncombustible construction constructed as a fire separation with a 2 hour fire resistance rating for the Level 1 floor assembly. Note that Article 3.2.2.15. does not have any requirements for the use of noncombustible construction for storeys below ground, but if there is more than 1 storey below the adjoining finished ground level, the floor assemblies would require a 2 hour FRR for basement storage garages. Sentence 3.2.2.15.(1) only applies to a building that is constructed entirely below adjoining finished ground level and is only one 1 storey below that ground level. For this condition, the construction requirements are determined by Articles 3.2.2.20. to 3.2.2.90. for a basement below a 1 storey building having the same occupancy and building area. Sente nce 3.2.2.15.(1) would not apply to buildings designed to Article 3.2.1.2. because there would be no buildings above the building that is entirely below adjoining finished ground level. Sentence 3.2.2.15.(2) applies to any portion of a building that is constructed entirely below adjoining finished ground level and is more than 1 storey below that ground level. Sentence 3.2.2.15.(2) is silent with respect to the use of noncombustible construction and there is no cross reference to apply the construction requirements of Articles 3.2.2.20. to 3.2.2.90. Yes Since only certain components of the storage garage are "required" to be noncombustible as described in Answer #1, the other components are permitted to be combustible. The restrictions for the use of combustible piping materials in Article 3.1.5.19. would not apply to this particular storage garage. Note that there are restrictions on transitioning from combustible piping in the below grade storage garage to noncombustible plumbing risers in the above grade storeys. Refer to previous BCIC Interpretations #98-0139 (revised June 21, 2011), #06-0070 and #12-0004. The BC Building Code Interpretation Committee will send a code change request to NRC to amend Sentence 3.2.2.15.(2) to require noncombustible construction and minimum construction requirements for below grade floor assemblies , bearing walls and columns. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0008 | Application of Requirements of CSA 8651 and BCBC 3.8.8 | 26/06/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0008 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: June 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Application of Requirements of CSA 8651 and BCBC 3.8.3 Keywords: Accessible Design Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.1, Table 3.8.3.1 Question: Can the accessible design provisions as listed in Table 3.8.3.1 be applied on a line by line basis for the Building Code references in the Table? Interpretation: Yes. Sentence 3.8.3.1.(1) requires buildings or parts thereof that are required to be accessible to be designed in accordance with Subsection 3.8.3, or with the provisions of CSA B651 "Accessible Design for the Built Environment" listed in Table 3.8.3.1, in their entirety. Table 3.8.3.1 references all Building Code Articles from 3.8.3.2 through 3.8.3.21, and the corresponding sections of CSA 8651. The reference in 3.8.3.1.(1) to "the provisions of CSA 8651. listed in Table 3.8.3.1, in their entirety" is intended to refer to each provision individually and not to all of the provisions collectively. For example, ramp design could conform to all of the applicable requirements in sections 5.3 and 5.5 of CSA 8651 for the entire building, while the other accessible design provisions comply with the applicable Articles of Subsection 3.8.3 of the Building Code. It is not intended that some ramps could be designed to comply with CSA 8651 while other ramps in the same building would b designed to comply with Article 3.8.3.5 in the Building Code. Table 3.8.3.1 originated in the National Building Code (NBC). This interpretation has been confirmed with the BC Building & Safety Standards Branch, based on information from the National Research Council - Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, publishers of the NBC. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0007 | Fire Blocking within Rain Screen Air Cavity of Wall Assemblies | 26/03/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC FIie No: 18-0007 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: March 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire blocking within rain screen air cavity of wall assemblies Keywords: Rain screen air cavity, fire blocking Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.11.2.; 9.10.16.2. Question: 1. Should the requirement for fire blocks in wall assemblies include the rainscreen air cavity? Interpretation: 1. No. The rainscreen air cavity which is restricted to max. 25mm wide space, is excluded from the fire blocking requirement by Clauses 3.1.11.2.(2)(d) and 9.10.16.2.(2)(a). Note that this requirement stipulates that the wall is insulated and has only one concealed space. It is a good practice to provide through wall horizontal flashing on every floor level that at the same time does provide a break in the vertical cavity and allows for shrinkage and deflection movements at the wall/floor interface. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0006 | Crawl Space Ceiling Height Maximum | 26/03/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0006 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: March 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Crawl space ceiling height maximum Keywords: Crawl space, ceiling height, headroom, concealed space, basement Building Code Reference{s): 9.5.3.1., 9.10.8.9., 9.18., 3.2.2.9.(1) Question: For Part 9 buildings, Article 9.5.3.1. does not provide maximum ceiling height criteria for crawl spaces. Is a crawl space permitted to have a ceiling height of 2.4m or more? Interpretation: No, except in unusual circumstances. Article 9.5.3.1 does not address ceiling height of crawl spaces, because crawl spaces are not intended to be habitable or occupied spaces. In the absence of a formal definition of crawl space in the Building Code, dictionary meanings could be reviewed. The dictionary of Architecture and Construction by Cyril M. Harris, 4th edition, for example, indicates crawl space as: "1. Any interior space of limited height, but sufficient to permit workmen access to otherwise concealed ductwork, piping, or wiring. 2. In a building without a basement, an unfinished accessible space below the first floor which is usually less than a full storey in height; normally enclosed by the foundation wall. 3. A creep trench." Crawl spaces are therefore not intended to be spaces where normal functional headroom height is provided to accommodate normal use and occupancy. Sentence 9.10.8.9.(1) requires a crawl space to be considered a basement in applying the requirements of Article 9.10.8.1. (Fire-Resistance Ratings for Floors and Roofs), if it: exceeds 1.8m height, is used for any occupancy, is used as a plenum in combustible construction, or is used for the passage of flue pipes. Sentence 3.2.2.9.(1) similarly indicates that: "For the purposes of Articles 3.1.11.6., 3.2.1.4. and 3.2.1.5.• a crawl space shall be considered as a basement if it is a) more than 1.8 m high between the lowest part of the floor assembly and the ground or other surface below, b) used for any occupancy, c) used for the passage of flue pipes, or d) used as a plenum in combustible construction." Sentence 9.5.3.1.(1) and Table 9.5.3.1. indicates the minimum headroom for an unfinished basement including the laundry area therein must be 2m high. Sentence 9.9.3.4.(2) requires a minimum 2m headroom in storage garages. This implies that usable spaces with a height 2m or more are typically considered spaces that can be used and occupied for purposes not permitted for crawl spaces. Unoccupied spaces with a ceiling height in the range of 1.8m to 2m are considered concealed or void spaces but with inadequate headroom to satisfy Sentence 9.5.3.1.(1) and Table 9.5.3.1. Such concealed or inaccessible spaces are not typically considered crawl spaces, are not to be used for any use and occupancy (including storage), and must also comply with the fire resistance rating requirements of Article 9.10.8.1. for floor assemblies. However, there may be some full height spaces exceeding 2m, that could still be considered as 0 crawl spaces because the access or ground is difficult enough that they still are not usable as occupied basements or usable spaces. In more extreme cases involving steep sloping sites, there could be cases where a crawl space or concealed space exceeds typical maximum crawl space ceiling heights. These are special crawl space or concealed space situations not envisaged by the Building Code. Notwithstanding being probably the most significant variable, height is not necessarily the sole determining criterion for crawl space. Ease of access, levelness of floor or terrain, ground seal, whether heated/ conditioned or not, or general usability, etc, are other considerations. Zoning and Development Bylaws may have different criteria affecting crawl spaces. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0005 | Fixed Ladder and Hatch Location for Roof Area Access | 19/02/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0005 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: February 19, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fixed ladder and hatch location for roof area access Keywords: Roof access, floor areas, fixed ladder, hatch, main roof areas, roof-top enclosures Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.5.3.(1)(b), NFPA 14 Question: Clause 3.2.5.3.(1)(b) requires all main roof areas of buildings over 3 storeys with a roof slope less than 1 in 4, to be provided with direct access from the floor areas immediately below by means of a hatch with a fixed ladder. 1. Is it the intent of Clause 3.2.5.3.(1)(b) to require the fixed ladder and roof hatch to be located within a floor area and not within an exit stair enclosure, given that the definition of floor area excludes exits? 2. Instead of a fixed ladder and hatch located in the interior floor area to access the roof from below; is it acceptable to locate a fixed ladder at the exterior to provide access from a main roof area to another main roof area over a roof-top enclosure accessed from the main roof? For example, the roof of a penthouse, partial storey, or amenity structure is accessed from a building main roof via a fixed ladder positioned at the exterior of these roof-top enclosures. 3. What is meant by "main roof area"? For example, is the roof over a penthouse or rooftop amenity roof-top enclosure also considered a main roof area? Interpretation: 1. No. The intent of the Building Code is to facilitate fire fighter access to a main roof area, and minimize delay in fire fighting. Therefore, a fixed ladder and hatch should be allowed to be placed wlthin an exit stair enclosure. It is common practice to place the fixed ladder and the hatch within an exit stairwell as it provides a protected place for firefighters to access a roof and run a firehose directly to the roof from a standpipe connection, if necessary for fire department operations. Locating the fixed ladder and hatch within the exit stair enclosure is considered to provide sufficiently direct access from the floor areas immediately below the roof areas. 2. Yes. A fixed ladder can be placed at the exterior of a roof-top enclosure to provide access from one main roof area to an upper main roof area as the roof exterior is open vented, thus providing a degree of safety for firefighter access intended by the Building Code. The location of the fixed ladder to the upper main roof area should be visually apparent or sufficient signage provided at the access to the first encountered main roof area. 3. The term 'main roof area' should apply to any roof over any floor area that is part of a storey. It should not be assumed that roofs above roof-top enclosures can be reached by firefighters using a portable ladder, as this could unnecessarily delay firefighter access. Roof-top enclosures exempted by Sentence 3.2.1.1.(1) from being considered a storey are not considered to require such facilitated fire fighter access to their roofs, unless such roof-top enclosures are of a significant size or occupy an area equal to the storey below. An example of this is a large service room at the top of a hospital or laboratory building. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0004 | Guard at Backyard Retaining Wall | 16/04/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0004 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: April 16, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Guard at Backyard Retaining Wall Keywords: Guard Building Code Reference(s): Division A, 1.1.1.1.(1) Question: In the backyard of a house, is a guard required at a two-tier retaining wall at the rear perimeter of the yard, where each tier has a drop of about 1.2 m? Interpretation: This issue is not addressed by the BC Building Code. Division A, Sentence 1.1.1.1.(1) refers to the various applications of the Building Code. A guard on a retaining wall that is not part of a building, and is not part of an exterior exit route for the building, is not within any of the applications of the Building Code. Therefore, the requirement for a guard in this location is not regulated by Building Code. The Building Code does not address all safety issues. Although the Code does not require a guard in this situation, the risk to persons using the areas near the retaining wall should be considered in assessing whether a guard should be provided. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0003 | Bevels at Door Thresholds | 19/02/2019 | AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0003 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: February 19, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Bevels at Door Thresholds Keywords: Door Threshold, Bevel Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.13.(11) Question: Where there is a door between a dwelling unit and an attached parking garage, with a beveled threshold in the doorway, which way should the bevel face? Interpretation: The direction of the bevel(s) depends on the elevation difference between the threshold and the adjacent finished floor. Sentence 3.3.1.13.(11) requires that where a doorway threshold is not flush with the floor, the threshold shall be no higher than 13 mm above the finished floor surface, and where it is higher than 6 mm it shall be beveled at a slope no steeper than 1 in 2. The purpose of the bevel is to reduce the potential tripping hazard of the change in elevation in the doorway. This applies regardless of the direction that a person will travel through the doorway. The finished floor elevations may be different on the opposite sides of the threshold. If the threshold is more than 6 mm higher than the adjacent finished floor on only one side, the threshold must be beveled on that side. If the threshold is more than 6 mm higher than the finished floor on both sides, the threshold must be beveled on both sides. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0002 | Cleanouts for Building Sewers 6" or Less in Size | 26/03/2019 | AlBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0002 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2 Interpretation Date: March 26, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) Subject: Cleanouts for Building Sewers 6" or Less in Size Keywords: Building Sewer, Cleanout Building Code Reference(s): 2.4.7.1.(5) What is the maximum change of direction permitted on a 6" (or less) building sewer? Sentence 2.4.7.1.(5) of the BCPC states; "A building sewer shall not change direction or slope between the building sewer and public sewer or between cleanouts, except that pipes not more than 6 inches in size may change direction a) by not more than 5° every 3 m, or b) by the use of fittings with a cumulative change of direction of not more than 45°." This means that a 6" (or less) building sewer would require additional cleanout fittings where a change of direction is accomplished by using 2 or more 45° fittings. If, for example, the change of direction was accomplished using 2 22° fittings, no additional cleanouts would be required. Many jurisdictions require an inspection chamber (IC) near the property line at the connection point to the municipal sewer. The IC can act as a cleanout, if it is a minimum 4" in size, and may be taken into consideration when applying the above Sentence since it provides for two-way rodding. An illustration of this situation has been provided on page 2. If there is more than a 45° change of direction in either the horizontal or vertical plane additional cleanouts are required. The intent statement attributed to Sentence 2.4.7.1.(5) in the 2015 National Plumbing Code (on which the 2018 BCPC is substantially based) states in part as follows; "To limit the probability that excessive direction or slope changes in small-diameter sewers will lead to an inability to clear system blockages, ". This intent statement lends support to the above interpretation. | Download |
| 2018 | 18-0001 | Fire Department Connections for High Buildings | 19/02/2019 | BC BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION COMMITTEE A joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC, BOABC File No: 18-0001 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1 Interpretation Date: February 19, 2019 Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018 Subject: Fire Department Connections for High Buildings Keywords: Fire department connections, high buildings Building Code Reference(s): Div A -1.5.1.2., Div B - 3.2.5.8., 3.2.5.9.(1), 3.2.5.9.(6), 3.2.5.15. Question: Are high buildings required to be served with 2 separate fire department connections? Interpretation: Yes (unless the local fire department determines that the 2nd FDC is not necessary) Clause 3.2.5.8.(1)(a) requires a standpipe system in a building when the building height exceeds 3 storeys. Therefore all high buildings require a standpipe system. Sentence 3.2.5.9.(1) requires that standpipe systems be designed to NFPA-14-2013. Sentence 3.2.5.9.(6) requires that a fire department connection be provided for every standpipe system. This means that BCBC requires at least 1 fire department connection for every building that requires a standpipe system. Article 7.12.2. of NFPA-14-2013 requires that a high building be provided with 2 remotely located fire department connections unless the local fire department advises that a single fire department connection is acceptable within their jurisdiction (see excerpt from NFPA-14-2013 below: 7.12.2 High-rise buildings shall have at least two remotely located fire department connections for each zone, 7 .12.2.1 A single connection for each zone shall be permitted where acceptable to the fire department. It should be noted that NFPA 14 defines a high building as one being 75 feet (23m) high measured from the fire department access route to the uppermost floor, rather than 18m in the 2018 BCBC measured from grade to the uppermost floor. This is not considered to be a conflicting requirement as described in Division A -Article 1.5.1.2. because Sentence 3.2.5.9.(1) requires the standpipe system be designed to NFPA-14-2013, so the requirements of Article 7.12.2. and Sentence 7.12.2.1. would apply. Patrick Shek, P.Eng• cP. FEC. Committee Chair The views expressed are the consensus of the joint committee with members representing AIBC, EGBC and BOABC which form the BC Building Code Interpretation Committee. The Building and Safety Standards Branch. Province of BC and the City of Vancouver participate m the committee's proceedings with respect to interpretations of the BC Building Code. The purpose of the committee is to encourage uniform province wide interpretation of the BC Building Code. These views should not be considered as the official interpretation on of legislated requirements based on the BC Building Code, as final responsibility for an interpretation rests with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction. The views of the joint committee should not be construed as legal advice. | Download |
