| 2018 |
18-0161 |
Parcel Rooms and Parcel Storage Lockers in Exit Lobbies |
16/11/2021 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0161
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
A joint committee with members representing
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION
November 16, 2021
BC Building Code 2018
Page 1 of 2
Subject: Parcel Rooms and Parcel Storage Lockers in Exit Lobbies
Keywords: Parcel rooms, parcel storage lockers, exit lobbies
Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.4.2.(2)(e)(i) & (iii)
Question:
1. Can parcel storage rooms open directly into an exit lobby?
2. Can freestanding parcel storage lockers with multiple storage boxes be located within an exit
lobby?
3. Can the wall between a parcel storage room and an exit lobby be constructed as a fire
separation with no fire resistance rating?
Interpretation:
1. No
Subclause 3.4.4.2.(2)(e)(i) prohibits a storage room from opening directly into an exit lobby.
A parcel storage room is considered to be a "storage room" due to the potential for large
quantities of combustible content, so it cannot open directly into the exit lobby.
It should be noted that the BC Building Code Appeal Board addressed a similar issue in Appeal
#1774 dated November 19, 2015 with respect to conventional mailboxes in exit lobbies. The
Appeal Board ruled that conventional mailboxes are permitted within an exit lobby because they
are "incidental to the purpose of access through a lobby" (see Attachment). Since that time, the
design of buildings has changed to accommodate courier deliveries of larger parcels with either
separate parcel storage rooms or storage lockers. It is interpreted that Appeal #1774 is not applicable to this new design trend for parcel storage rooms or storage lockers.
2. No
Freestanding parcel storage lockers with multiple storage boxes could contain large quantities of
combustible content and are not permitted within an exit lobby.
A few individual parcel storage boxes that are part of the conventional mailboxes are permitted to
be located within an exit lobby.
3. No
Subclause 3.4.4.2.(2)(e)(iii) permits the wall between a room and an exit lobby to be constructed
as a fire separation with no fire resistance rating if the room is permitted to open directly into the
exit lobby.
Since parcel storage rooms are not permitted to open directly into an exit lobby, this subclause
does not apply.
The fire separation between the parcel storage room and the exit lobby requires a fire resistance
rating (FRR) to match that of the exit enclosure (i.e. 1 hour FRR if the exit enclosure requires a 1
hour FRR, and 2 hour FRR if the exit enclosure requires a 2 hour FRR). |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0162 |
Modified International Symbol of Access |
15/03/2022 |
File No: 18-0162 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: March 15, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Modified International Symbol of Access
Keywords: Modified, symbol, access
Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.9.(1 ), A-3.8.3.9.(1)
Question:
Is it acceptable to use the Modified International Symbol of Access rather than the International
Symbol of Access that is referenced in Sentence 3.8.3.9.(1 )?
Interpretation:
Yes
Figures 3.8.3.9. A, B & C on pages 72 & 73 of the Building Accessibility Handbook 2020 indicate
the Modified International Symbols of Access. This handbook is published by the Building and
Safety Standards Branch of the Office of Housing and Construction Standards.
Although these symbols are not referenced in Sentence 3.8.3.9.(1) or Notes to Part 3 A-3.8.3.9.(1 ),
the Building and Safety Standards Branch has recommended their use in the Province of BC.
It is expected that the BC Building Code may be amended to accommodate the use of the
Modified International Symbol of Access.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0163 |
Fireblocking Horizontal Concealed Spaces |
22/11/2022 |
File No: 18-0163 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: November 22, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Fireblocking horizontal concealed spaces
Keywords: Concealed Space
Building Code Reference(s): Article 3.1.11 .5.
Question:
Is the service space beneath the fire rated assembly and above the ceiling of a public corridor
a "horizontal concealed space within a floor or roof assembly of combustible construction" as
described in Article 3.1.11.5.?
Interpretation:
No
The BCBC does not have a definition for "concealed spaces" but uses this term for spaces such as:
attic, crawl space, cornice, raised floor, service space, plenum, cavity of wall or ceiling.
Concealed spaces may be a concern for the spread of fire within the building, whether they have
combustible content or not. However, a concealed space that does not contain combustible
materials, is considered less hazardous and NFPA does not require this space (with some size
restrictions) to be sprinklered, as it does not contribute to propagation of the fire. Concealed spaces
that contain combustible materials may require fire blocking in accordance with BCBC requirements.
A dropped ceiling that is below the fire rated assembly is not considered to be a concealed space for
the purpose of Article 3.1 .1 1.5., however it must be free of combustible content to be unsprinklered. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0164 |
Soil Replacement for Stormwater Management |
14/06/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0164 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: June 14, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Soil Replacement for Stormwater Management
Keywords: Soil, replacement, stormwater, letters of assurance
Building Code Reference(s): Division C Article 2.2.7.3.
Question:
If a project includes replacement of existing soil as part of a stormwater management system,
is Letter of Assurance from a registered professional of record required for this work?
Interpretation:
No
The design of stormwater management systems is considered to be engineering work and must be
undertaken by a registered professional of record, but it is not regulated by the building code.
Letters of Assurance Schedules B and C-B are not the appropriate assurance mechanism.
Refer to Version 6.1 of the Guide to Letters of Assurance which was recently published on
February 11 , 2022.
Section 21 of the Guide discusses the application of Letters of Assurance to civil works. The
Working Group that developed the Guide made recommendations to the Building and Safety
Standards Branch that the Letters of Assurance should be amended to include the Civil
Engineering discipline. The Guide would be updated to define the roles of civil engineers more
clearly in the design of projects including stormwater management systems.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0165 |
Venting of Roof Spaces |
19/04/2022 |
File No: 18-0165 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: April 19, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Venting of Roof Spaces
Keywords:
Roof Spaces, Venting,
Preformed Rigid Insulation Baffles
Building Code Reference(s): 9.19.1.1. (1), 9.19.1.2., 9.19.1.3.
Question:
For roof spaces in single family dwellings, Article 9.19.1.3. sets out clearances required between the
top of insulation and underside of roof sheathing, with the intent of maintaining adequate cross
venting of roof spaces as required by Articles 9.19.1.1 and 9.19.1.2.
If applying Sentence 9.19.1.3.(2), and if the minimum vent area requirements of Article 9.19.1.2 are
already met; is it acceptable to use preformed rigid insulation baffles that do not span the full width
of the joist cavities joists are typically spaced 600mm o.c.), or are only provided every second joist cavity?
Interpretation:
No.
If preformed rigid insulation baffles do not service the full widths of joist cavities, or are omitted at
every second joist cavity, there will be numerous localized instances where there could be insulation
either in direct contact with the roof sheathing, or not allowing adequate movement of air to achieve
adequate roof space venting. This is important for preventing moisture accumulation and risk of
potential deterioration. This is even more of a concern if the roof sheathing is directly installed on the
supporting joists without any intervening cross purlins between the support joists and roof sheathing.
Sentence 9.19.1 .2.(4) requires that if no cross purlins are installed, then each joist space must be
separately vented.
Sentence 9.19.1.3.(3) requires that ceiling insulation be installed in a manner that will not restrict the
free flow of air through any portion of the roof space.
See also past BC Building Code Appeal number 1855.
Annotated photographs are provided on the following page for guidance. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0166 |
Protection of Foamed Plastic Insulation in the Crawl Space of a House |
15/02/2022 |
File No: 18-0166
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
February 15, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Protection of Foamed Plastic Insulation in the Crawl Space
of a House
Crawl Space, Foamed Plastic
9.10.8.1, 9.10.8.9.(1 ), 9.10.17.10.(1)
If the crawl space of a house is heated and contains mechanical equipment, ventilation ducts
and drainage piping, is the foamed plastic insulation in the crawl space required to be
protected from adjacent areas in the crawl space?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 9.10.17.10.(1) requires protection of foamed plastic insulation in a wall or ceiling
assembly, except that protection is not required from adjacent concealed spaces in attic or
roof spaces, crawl spaces, wall assemblies or ceiling assemblies.
Sentence 9.10.8.9.(1) states "Where a crawl space exceeds 1.8 m in height or is used for
any occupancy or as a plenum in combustible construction or for the passage of flue pipes,
it shall be considered as a basement in applying the requirements in Article 9.10.8.1."
This requirement for a crawl space to be considered as a basement refers only to the
requirements of Article 9.10.8.1, which affects the fire-resistance rating of the floor assembly
over the crawl space. This does not affect the application of the requirements related to
foamed plastic insulation in the crawl space. Foamed plastic insulation in a crawl space
does not need to be protected from adjacent concealed spaces in the crawl space, in
accordance with Sentence 9.10.17.10.(1 ).
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0167 |
Hot Water Tank Pan Drain Connected to Storm Drainage |
15/02/2022 |
File No: 18-0167
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
February 15, 2022
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC)
Hot Water Tank Pan Drain Connected to Storm
Drainage
Pan Drain, Storm Drainage System, P-Trap
2.6.1.7.(9), 2.6.1.7.(10), 2.4.2.1.(1 )(c) & (d), 2.4.5.2.(2)
Where a pan is required for a hot water tank in accordance with Sentence 2.6.1.7.(9), can the drain
be connected to a storm drainage system, and if so, is a trap required?
Interpretation:
Yes and Yes
In accordance with Clause 2.4.2.1.(1 )(c), a floor drain is permitted to connect to a storm drainage
system provided it is located where it can receive only clear-water waste or storm water. A pan drain
installed to satisfy the requirements of Sentence 2.6.1.7.(9) would be considered a type of
emergency floor drain for the purpose of protecting the area in which a storage-type service water
heater is located. Further, Sentence 2.4.5.2.(2) requires a floor drain that drains to a storm drainage
system to be protected by a trap. The connection of a pan drain with a trap which drains to a storm
drainage system also complies with the requirements of Clause 2.6.1.7.(1 0)(c).
It is important to note that there are a number of ways to satisfy the above requirements and connect
the pan drain serving a storage-type service water heater to an appropriate location. Also, there is
no defined term for "pan drain" and it is interpreted that the outlet from this drain is a type of
emergency floor drain, installed in the event of relief valve discharge or tank failure.
Also see past BC Building Code Interpretations #18-0110, #98-0114 and POABC Interpretation
#4106 for further information and permitted connections for pan drains.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0168 |
Exposure from a Second Storey Opening to a Ground Floor Exit |
15/03/2022 |
File No: 18-0168 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: March 15, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Exposure from a Second Storey Opening to a Ground
Floor Exit
Keywords: Exit, Unprotected Opening, Exposure
Building Code Reference(s): 9.9.4.4, 9.9.4.5, 9.9.4.6
Question:
1. In a Part 9 building, where the only egress from a ground floor unit is an exterior exit
door, what restrictions are applicable to the exposure from an unprotected opening in
the exterior wall of a second storey unit (a different fire compartment) above the
ground floor door?
2. Where there is a restriction on exposure from a second storey unprotected opening
to a ground floor exit, can an intervening exterior balcony or roof projection form part
of the protection?
Interpretation:
1. The answer depends on the exterior conditions at the exit door.
If the exit door leads to an unenclosed exterior stair or ramp, Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1)
requires that unprotected openings within 3 m horizontally and 10 m below or 5 m
above the exit must be protected by wired glass in fixed steel frames or glass block
conforming to Article 9.10.13.5 and 9.10.13.7. Both the vertical and horizontal
dimensions must be applied. The 3 m dimension is measured horizontally on each
side of the exit, and within this horizontal distance any windows or other unprotected
openings that are less than 5 m above the exit are required to be protected. Although
Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1) specifically applies only to unenclosed exterior stairs or ramps, it
is advisable to also consider exposure to an exterior exit route that is not a stair or a
ramp where there is only one direction of exterior travel and it is exposed to an
unprotected opening from another fire compartment.
Article 9.9.4.5 deals with openings in the exterior walls of an exit enclosure. This does
not directly apply to an exterior exit door where there is no exit enclosure.
Article 9.9.4.6 addresses exposure from an unprotected opening to an exterior exit
door in a different fire compartment, where the exterior walls of the two fire
compartments intersect at an angle of less than 135°. In that situation, unprotected
openings within 3 m horizontally of the exit door are required to be protected with wired
glass or glass block as noted above. Article 9.9.4.6 is not applicable where the
unprotected opening and the exterior door are located in the same plane.
2. Yes.
Although not directly addressed in the Building Code, it is reasonable that an
intervening balcony or roof that provides at least the same degree of fire-resistance as
the required wired glass in steel frames or glass block can contribute to the protection
of the unprotected opening that exposes an exit. Since radiation emitted by a fire
travels in a straight line from the source, the protection distance could be determined
by the most conservative projection of the radiation that would "see" the exterior exit.
For example, a straight line could be drawn from the top of a second storey window
opening, through the outside edge of the intervening balcony or roof and projecting
down to the level of the exit, to determine where the exposure to the exterior exit would
occur.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0169 |
Application of Spatial Separation Requirements to Skirting of a Portable Classroom |
15/03/2022 |
File No: 18-0169
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
A portable school classroom is a modular building supported on wood cribbing. Where
Sentence 3.2.3.7.(1) requires noncombustible cladding, is the skirting used to close off the
unconditioned space below the floor also required to be noncombustible?
Interpretation:
Yes.
Sentence 3.2.3.2.(1) states that the exposing building face (EBF) area of a wall is based on
the wall area from grade to the uppermost ceiling. Sentence 3.2.3.2.(2) allows an EBF to be
calculated separately for different fire compartments, where they are separated from other
compartments by fire separations with fire-resistance ratings of at least 45 min.
The floor of a portable classroom is typically not constructed as a fire separation with a fireresistance
rating of at least 45 min. Therefore, the space below the floor assembly is part of
the same fire compartment as the classroom, and its exterior walls are part of the same
EBFs as the classroom. Where Sentence 3.2.3.7.(1) requires noncombustible cladding for
an EBF, the skirting that is part of the EBF is also required to be noncombustible.
There is an exception for an EBF permitted to have more than 10% unprotected openings,
where Sentence 3.2.3.7.(3) allows combustible cladding in accordance with Article 3.1.5.5
(i.e. cladding that is permitted in a building where noncombustible construction is required).
Also, if the floor assembly is actually constructed as at least a 45 min fire separation, the
EBF of the space below the floor is likely to be much smaller than the EBF of the classroom,
and the spatial separation requirements may be less restrictive.
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
March 15, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Application of Spatial Separation Requirements to
Skirting of a Portable Classroom
Spatial Separation, Cladding, Noncombustible
3.2.3.2.(1) & (2), 3.2.3.7.(1 ), 3.2.3.7.(3), 3.1.5.5 |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0170 |
Exemption for Landing at the top of Stair |
27/09/2022 |
File No: 18-0170 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: September 27, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Exemption for Landing at the top of stair
Keywords: Landing, stairs, door swing
Building Code Reference(s): Sentence 9.8.6.2.(2)
Question:
Is the landing required at the top of the interior stairs within the dwelling unit to an outside
door that swings outward?
Interpretation:
No (with caution).
Sentence 9.8.6.2.(2) permits the deletion of a landing at the top of an interior stair within a
dwelling unit where the users of the stair are familiar with such design.
This would apply to interior stairs with interior or exterior doors within the dwelling unit.
It should be noted that the uppermost step must include a full stair tread in advance of the door
threshold.
This is not recommended for a new design of interior stairs that lead to an exterior door because
visitors may not be familiar with the design. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0172 |
Fire Separation between Secondary Suite and Garage |
15/03/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0172 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: March 15, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Fire Separation between Secondary Suite and Garage
Keywords: Secondary suite, attached garage
Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.9.16.(2), 9.10.9.16.(3)
Question:
A secondary suite in a single family dwelling abuts an attached garage (either on the same floor or
overtop of the attached garage) that is shared with the main dwelling. Is a fire separation required
between the secondary suite and the attached garage? If so, what is the required fire-resistance
rating?
Interpretation:
Yes, a fire separation is required.
Article 9.10.9.16 regulates the requirements of fire separation between a storage garage (in this case
the attached garage) and other occupancies (with or without a secondary suite).
A 1.5 h fire separation is required if the attached garage contains more than 5 motor vehicles as per
Sentence 9.10.9.16.(1 ). The exceptions provided in Sentences 9.10.9.16.(2) and (3) are only
applicable to those attached garages containing 5 or fewer motor vehicles.
A 1 h fire separation is required if the attached garage contains 5 motor vehicles or fewer as per
Sentence 9.10.9.16.(2).
In the majority of cases the attached garage in a house with a secondary suite either serves only the
principal dwelling or shares between the two; therefore, Sentence 9.10.9.16.(3) cannot be applied to
waive the fire separation between the garage and the secondary suite. A 1 h fire separation would
be required between the garage and the secondary suite.
In a very rare occasion if the attached garage only serves the secondary suite and is not abutting the
principal dwelling Sentence 9.10.9.16.(3) can be applied to waive the fire separation between the
garage and the secondary suite since the garage is considered part of the secondary suite. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0173 |
Water Closet Calculations |
15/03/2022 |
File No: 18-0173 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: March 15, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Water Closet Calculations
Keywords: Water Closets, Occupant Load, Calculations, Reduction
Building Code Reference(s): 3.7.2.2.(2), 3.7.2.2.(4)
Question:
An occupancy classified as Group A, D, E, or F, has an occupant load of 20 or less.
Sentence 3.7.2.2.(2) indicates that if a single universal toilet room designed to Section 3.8 is
provided, then the total number persons in the building is permitted to be reduced by 1 O before
applying Sentences (6), (7), (8), (12), (13), or (14).
Does that mean that Sentence 3.7.2.2.(2) can then be applied using the remainder 10 persons
occupant load in this example?
Interpretation:
Yes.
If a single universal toilet room designed to Section 3.8 is provided, after reduction of the occupant
load by 10 in accordance with Sentence 3.7.2.2.(2), then the remaining 10 persons occupant load
can be used for the purposes of applying Sentence 3.7.2.2.(4). Therefore, in the example given,
there will be a total of 2 washrooms required to be provided (one of which is the universal toilet
room).
See also past BC Building Code Interpretation 06-0021. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0174 |
Extent of Insulation Beneath Floor Slabs |
15/03/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0174 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: March 15, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Extent of Insulation Beneath Floor Slabs
Keywords: Insulation, Floor Slabs, Frost line, Footings
Building Code Reference(s): 9.36.2.8.( 4)(b)(i)
Question:
Article 9.36.2.8 addresses thermal characteristics of building assemblies below-grade or in contact
with the ground. Sentence 9.36.2.8.(4) provides acceptable methods for insulating unheated floorson-
ground (slabs) that are above the frost line. If using the option of applying the insulation vertically
on the interior side of the foundation wall, the applicable Subclause 9.36.2.8.(4)(b)(i) does not
clearly indicate how to address the situation where there is less than the required 1.2m vertical
distance from underside of slab to the top of footings.
Question: If the vertical distance between the bottom of an unheated floor-on-ground and the top of
the perimeter footings is less than 1.2m, is it acceptable to only insulate the available vertical
distance?
Interpretation:
Yes.
Guidance is provided in the explanatory
diagram accompanying the Notes to Subclause
9.36.2.8.( 4)(b )(i):
The illustration indicates that where the vertical distance from bottom of floor slab to top of perimeter
footing is less than 1.2m, it is acceptable practice to insulate only the available vertical distance.
1 .2m is the minimum depth of insulation when the top of the footing is more than 1.2m below the
underside of the floor slab.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0175 |
Wall Exposed to another Wall in Sprinklered Compartments |
19/04/2022 |
File No: 18-0175
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION
April 19, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Wall exposed to another wall in sprinklered
compartments
Page 1 of 2
Keywords: Exposure, Do, unprotected opening, fire compartments
Building Code Reference(s): Division B: 3.2.3.1 4.(1 ), 3.2.3.14.(2), 3.2.3.14.(3)
Question:
Sentence 3.2.3.14.(3) exempts the separation distance (Do) in Sentence 3.2.3.14.(1) in sprinklered
fire compartments that are not on opposite sides of a firewall. However, Sentence (3) does not
explicitly mention fire resistance rating requirements of Sentence 3.2.3.14.(2).
For fire compartments that are not on opposite sides of a firewall, do the fire separation
requirements of Sentence 3.2.3.14.(2) still apply if the compartments are sprinklered?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 3.2.3.14.(1) requires unprotected openings in the exterior wall of a fire compartment to be
separated by a distance (Do) of unprotected openings in a separate fire compartment when the walls
are at an angle of less than 135°. The distance (Do) is calculated based on the greater limiting
distance of the 2 exposing building faces and the angle of exterior walls relative to each other.
Sentence 3.2.3.14.(2) requires the exterior walls to have a fire resistance rating commensurate with
the required fire rating between the fire compartments and the remainder of the building. The fire
resistance rating of the exterior walls shall be measured from the point of intersection to a distance
(Do) calculated in Sentence 3.2.3.14.(1).
Unless the compartments are on opposite sides of a firewall, Sentence 3.2.3. 14.(3) waives the
requirement to determine the distance (Do) when the compartments are sprinklered.
Sentence (2) requires the fire rating to be applied at a distance (Do), but in in certain circumstances,
(Do) is not required to be determined in accordance with Sentence (3). In that instance the fire
resistance rating required in Sentence (2) cannot be applied because the value of the distance (Do) is
not known.
Although Sentence 3.2.3.14.(3) only mentions Sentence 3.2.3.14.(1), the values determined in
Sentence (1) are necessary to apply Sentence (2). Therefore it logically follows that the waiver in
Sentence (3) applies to both Sentences ( 1) and (2). |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0176 |
Nominally Reinforced Concrete |
14/06/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0176 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: June 14, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Nominally Reinforced Concrete
Keywords: Nominally, reinforced, concrete, professional design
Building Code Reference(s): 9.3.1 .1.(2) & (3), 9.15.3, 9.15.4.
Question:
1. Does "nominally reinforced" concrete have to be designed to Part 4? What is considered to be
"nominally reinforced"?
2. If concrete footings are designed to Subsection 9. 15.3., must they be designed by a registered
professional of record and require a Schedules B and C-B?
3. If foundation walls are designed to Subsection 9. 15.4., must they be designed by a registered
professional of record and require a Schedules B and C-B?
Interpretation:
1. No (with conditions)
Division C Clause 2.2.7.1.(1 )(c) requires professional design and field review when structural
components are not within the scope of Part 9.
9.3.1.1.(2) permits unreinforced concrete and nominally reinforced concrete to use site-batched
concrete in accordance with 9.3. 1.2. to 9.3.1.9. This sentence does not address the design
requirements of the structural component.
9.3. 1.1.(3) requires reinforced concrete to be designed to Part 4 by a registered professional of
record.
Concrete footings and foundation walls that meet the prescriptive requirements of Section 9.15
can be designed to Part 9 and do not require professional design or field review.
"Nominally reinforced" concrete footings and foundation walls would be ones that meet the
prescriptive requirements of Subsections 9.15.3. and 9.15.4. for unreinforced concrete, but the
owner has elected to install some rebar to enhance the performance and minimize shrinkage
cracking.
It should be noted that Section 9.15 does not require any reinforcing in solid concrete footing and
foundations.
The rebar shown in Table 9.15.4.2.-B only applies to concrete block walls. If the concrete block
walls are designed to 9.15.4.2., they do not require professional design or field review.
The rebar shown in Tables 9.15.4.5.-A, B & C only applies to flat insulating concrete form
foundation walls. If the flat insulating concrete form foundation walls are designed to 9.15.4.2.,
they do not requi re professional design or field review if the walls meet the requirements of
9.3.1.1.(4)(a) & (b).
2. No
Division C Clause 2.2.7.1.(1 )(c) does not require professional design and field review when
structural components are within the scope of Part 9.
3. No (with conditions)
Division C Clause 2.2. 7.1.(1 )(c) does not require professional design and field review when
structural components are within the scope of Part 9.
Flat insulating concrete form foundation walls that are designed to 9.15.4.2. must also meet the
requirements of 9.3.1.1.(4)(a) & (b). |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0177 |
Spatial Separation of Detached Garage |
17/05/2022 |
File No: 18-0177 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.
2023-11-14
Interpretation Date:
May 17, 2022
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book I: General
Subject:
Spatial Separation of Detached Garage
Keywords:
Accessory Building; Detached Garage; Spatial Separation; Maximum Aggregate Area; Unprotected Openings
Building Code Reference(s):
9.10.14.4.(8); 9.10.15.1.
Question(s):
Is a detached garage serving a single dwelling unit, with windows facing an adjoining property, permitted to comply with those provisions related to maximum aggregate area of unprotected openings in an exposing building face for storage garages in 9.10.14.4.(8).?
Interpretation:
No.
The provisions of 9.10.14.4.(8) are integral to the spatial separation provisions of Subsection 9.10.14., for which the application of this Subsection is determined by the application statement in Sentence 9.10.14.1.(1). Sentence (1) establishes that Subsection 9.10.14. only applies to those buildings which are not governed by Subsection 9.10.15.
The corresponding application of Subsection 9.10.15., is established by Sentence 9.10.15.1.(1), which states:
Clause (c) identifies that that this section applies to accessory buildings that serve a building described in Clauses (a) or (b). These building types are described in the corresponding note A-9.10.15.1.(1). Neither of the terms “detached garage” or “accessory building” are defined in the BC Building Code.
The term “accessory building” is commonly understood to mean an auxiliary building whose use and occupancy is bound to an associated principal building, which in this application is required to be a building containing dwelling units, with no unit above another (such as a row house), or a house with or without a secondary suite per Clause 9.10.15.1.(1)(c). This is consistent with the dictionary usage of the word “accessory” usually meaning “subordinate or supplementary; an adjunct”.
The term “detached garage”, within the context of a residential building such as house or row house, is also typically deemed an accessory building since its use and occupancy is bound to the principal building either by its intended use, design, or through development regulations.
Consequently, while the detached garage is not specifically identified in the application statement of 9.10.15.1.(1), it may be established that this is an accessory building. It therefore follows that the spatial separation provisions for determining the maximum aggregate area of unprotected openings must be determined by Articles 9.10.15.2. through 9.10.15.4.
It is further noted that these provisions include Sentence 9.10.15.4.(6), which is not only applicable to an accessory building to a structure governed by Subsection 9.10.15., but also identify that it is applicable to a detached garage – waiving the requirements for spatial separation to the principal building, but providing no specific relaxation to an adjacent property.
Lastly, it is cautioned that the interpretation of application of 9.10.15.4. to detached garages may differ in the City of Vancouver, as additional specific provisions have been added to address unprotected openings in storage garages in Subsection 9.10.15.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0178 |
Air Venting and Flashing over the Window in Rainscreen Wall |
18/10/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0178 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: October 18, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Air venting and flashing over the window in rainscreen wall
Keywords: First and Second Planes of Protection
Building Code Reference(s): Subsections 9.27.2. and 9.27.3.
Question:
1. Is the 9.5 mm air gap per 9.27.2.2.(1) required between the through wall flashing above
the window frame in rainscreen installation?
2. Is flashing required above the window frame to the back of the siding?
1. Yes.
The flashing above the window frame is an extension of the air/moisture barrier of the
rainscreen installation. This is the second and last plane of protection of the wall assembly.
It is also an entry for the air circulation required between air/moisture membrane and wall
sheathing - see the diagram below.
2. Yes.
The cladding in a shingle effect is a first and primary plane of protection from water ingress.
It is maintained by overlapping the shingles or siding and needs to be continued at the
openings by providing the additional flashing over the trims - see the option 1 of the
diagram. The same effect can be achieved by using the profiled trim board in a shingle
overlap, with the siding as shown (in principle) in option 2.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0179 |
Definition of Building Sewer and Building Drain - Determining how the 1 m Distance is Applied |
15/03/2022 |
File No: 18-0179
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
March 15, 2022
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC)
Definition of Building Sewer and Building Drain -
determining how the 1 m distance is applied
Building Drain, Building Sewer
1.4.1.2.(1 ), Note A-1.4.1.2.(1 )-L
How is the 1 m distance where a building drain becomes a building sewer determined? In other words, is
this distance 1 m of developed length of pipe or is it at the point the pipe is 1 m away from any point of an
exterior wall?
Interpretation:
The definition of building sewer is as follows;
"Building sewer means a pipe that is connected to a building drain 1 m outside a wall of a building and that
leads to a public sewer or private disposal system".
It is interpreted that at the point the building drain exits the exterior wall of a building it is "outside" the
building and therefore after 1 m of developed length of this pipe it is now defined as a building sewer. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0180 |
Protection of Electrical Conductors for Fire Pumps |
17/05/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0180 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: May 17, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Protection of Electrical Conductors for Fire Pumps
Keywords: Fire Pump, Conductors
Building Code Reference(s): Division A; 1.5.2.1, Division B; 3.2.5.18, 3.2.7.10
Question:
Are all power supplies for a fire pump required to be protected from fire in accordance with
the requirements of NFPA 20?
Interpretation:
No, only the emergency power supply is required to be protected from fire.
Sentence 3.2.5.18.(1) states:
If a fire pump is installed, it shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of
NFPA 20, "Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection ."
The BC Building Code 2018 references the 2013 edition of NFPA 20. Paragraph 9. 1.4 of
NFPA 20 - 2013 states, for electrically powered fire pumps:
All power supplies shall be located and arranged to protect against damage by fire from
within the premises and exposing hazards.
The BCBC requirements for protection of electrical conductors are in Article 3.2.7.10.
Emergency conductors serving fire pumps are required to have a circuit integrity rating of at
least 1 h, or to be located in service spaces separated from the remainder of the building by
fire separations with a fire-resistance rating of at least 1 h. Refer to Interpretation 18-0035
for further explanation. The BCBC does not require fire protection of the normal power
supply.
Sentence 1.5.2.1.(1) in Division A 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 requirements of NFPA 20 may be different from the BCBC requirements for fire
protection of fire pump power supplies. In these cases, the BCBC requirements take
precedence. This is also the principle noted in BC Building Code Appeal Board Ruling 1809,
which stated that the NFPA 20 requirement for exterior access to the fire pump room (in a
previous edition of NFPA 20), was not applicable because it is not a BCBC requirement.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0181 |
Wired Safety Glass |
14/06/2021 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0181
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 3
June 14, 2021
BC Building Code 2018
Wired Safety Glass
Georgian wired glass, safety glass, impact loading
3.3.1.19.(3)(b), 3.4.6.15.(1) & (3), 9.6.1.4.(1 ), 9.8.8.7.(1)
Appendix D-2.3.15.
The Canadian General Standards Board has withdrawn the manufacturing standard for 'W ired
Safety Glass" (CAN/CGSB-1 2.11-M90) due to numerous serious injuries caused by human
impact with conventional annealed wired safety glass. Furthermore, the Canadian Glass
Association has recommended against the use of wired safety glass in locations subject to
human impact.
1. For non-fire rated glazing assemblies, is conventional annealed wired safety glass
permitted in buildings?
2. For fire rated glazing assemblies, is conventional annealed wired safety glass permitted in
buildings?
Interpretation:
1. Yes (with caution)
For Part 3 Buildings
3.3.1.1 9.(3)(b) requires that glazing that is used in a glass door must comply with either
CAN/CGSB-12.1-M90 (Tempered or Laminated Safety Glass) or CAN/CGSB-12.11-M90 (Wired
Safety Glass).
3.4.6. 15.(1) & (3) requires that glazing that is used in the door leaves of a manual or electrically
powered revolving glass door must comply with either CAN/CGSB-12.1-M90 (Tempered or
Laminated Safety Glass) or CAN/CGSB-12.11-M90 (Wired Safety Glass).
For Part 9 Buildings
9.6.1 .4.(1) requires that glazing that is used in sliding doors, storm doors and glass sidelights that
are more than 500 mm wide must comply with either CAN/CGSB-12.1-M90 (Tempered or
Laminated Safety Glass) or CAN/CGSB-1 2. 11-M90 (Wired Safety Glass).
9.8.8.7.(1) requires that glazing that is used in guards must comply with either CAN/CGSB-12.1-
M90 (Tempered or Laminated Safety Glass) or CAN/CGSB-12.11-M90 (Wired Safety Glass).
The type of glazing used in other locations in a building are not regulated with respect to the
glazing manufacturing standard.
Since the Canadian General Standards Board has withdrawn the manufacturing standard for
''Wired Safety Glass" (CAN/CGSB-12.11-M90), the quality control of the manufacture of
conventional annealed glass could be questionable.
It should be noted that the 2020 NBC has introduced a new Article 3.3.2.17. for Safety Glazing in
assembly buildings which references the new standard CAN/CGSB-12.1-2017 (Safety Glazing)
which includes impact resistant wired safety glass.
3.3.2.17. Safety Glazing
1) Except ,1~ permitted in Sentence (3), gl.,z in),; in .ill fi :1.ed am! operable panels of
doors shall conform to Class A of CAN/CGSB-12. 1, "Safety Glazing."
2) Except a,:, permitted in Sentence (.J ), gl.1zing in all fixed .ind operable panels of
windows shall conform to Class A o f CAN/CGSB-12. 1, "Safety Glazi ng."
3) Gl.1.1.ing in individu.i l fixed ur uperablc panels of .i dour need not comply with
Sentence (I). where
.i) the bottom exposed ed ge of the g lazing is loc.i led more than I 525 mm
above the w11lking s urf.ice• on each side of the door, or
b) the g l.ized opening in the d oor docs not permit the pass.igc o f ,1 sphere
whuse diameter is more th.in 75 mm.
4) Gla7ing in individual iixcd or ope r.iblc pc1nels of a window need not comply
with Sentence (2), where
,1) the bottom exposed edge of the g la zing is located more than 1 525 mm
above the walking surface on each side of the window, or
b) the glazing is located more than 9 15 mm away from the walking surface on
each side• of the window me,1sured perpendicular to the plane of the glazing.
Based on the recommendation of the Canadian Glass Association, it is prudent to avoid the use of
annealed wired safety glass in locations subject to human impact. It is prudent that glazing that
is subject to human impact be manufactured to the new standard CAN/CGSB-12.1-2017
using impact resistant wired glass.
2. Yes (with caution)
Appendix D-2.3.15. provides prescriptive requirements for wired glass assemblies that have a fire
resistance rating of up to 1 hour. These prescriptive requirements do not mention the
manufacturing standard for the wired safety glass.
The cautionary note in the answer to Question 1 also applies to fire rated glazing if it is located in
areas subject to human impact. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0183 |
Accessible Washroom Location for Museum with Seasonal Picnic Shelter to be Enclosed |
22/11/2022 |
File No: 18-0183
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
November 22, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Accessible Washroom Location for Museum with
Seasonal Picnic Shelter to be Enclosed
Accessible, Washroom, Seasonal, Museum, Picnic
Shelter
3.8.1.1. (3), 3.8.4.1. ( 1 )( c)(i i), 3.8.4.5.(1), 3.8.4. 7 .(2),
3.8.2.8. (2)(b)
A park has an existing museum with a food preparation kitchen. There is an adjacent picnic shelter
annex where occupants can order and eat. The building is proposed to be enclosed, including the
annex. The existing washroom within the museum is not accessible. There are 2 other existing toilet
rooms located approximately 58m from the annex.
1. Can Clause 3.8.2.8.(2)(b) be applied by having an accessible washroom within 45m via a flat
exterior travel path?
2. As this is a seasonal use annex, can an accessible portable washroom be used?
Interpretation:
1. No.
The scope of compliance for accessibility for existing buildings that undergo alterations must be
per Sentence 3.8.1.1.(3), Subclause 3.8.4.1 .(1 )(c)(ii), Sentence 3.8.4.5.(1 ), and Sentence
3.8.4.7.(2).
Sentence 3.8.4.5.(1) requires that if a building is altered, access shall be provided in
conformance with Subsections 3.8.2. and 3.8.3. where
a) persons with disabilities could reasonably be expected to be employed in, or could
reasonably be expected to use, such an occupancy or building, and
b) providing such access would be practical.
Interpretation of reasonableness and practicality necessitates discussion and a review of the
specific project circumstances, with the authority having jurisdiction. Various options can be
considered for accommodating the need for washrooms to serve persons with disabilities, such
as:
• Feasibility of modifying the existing interior washroom as practical, or
• Having an accessible washroom within 45m. Clause 3.8.2.8.(2)(b) allows the option of
providing an accessible washroom on the same floor area within 45m along an accessible
path of travel, implying this travel path needs to be via interior space. Having to use an
exterior access path to accessible washrooms may not be suitable for persons with
disabilities.
2. No (depending upon the extent of use).
An accessible washroom can be used if it meets the requirements of Subsection 3.8.3,
however, portable washrooms are typically unsuitable for permanent buildings.
Other Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, and Health regulations, etc., also need
to be considered.
A proposal to use portable accessible washrooms for an existing building or renovations,
needs discussion with the authority having jurisdiction. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0184 |
Shared Exits in Storage Garages |
18/10/2022 |
File No: 18-0184 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: October 18, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Shared Exits in Storage Garages
Keywords: Storage Garage, Distance Between Exits
Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.8.2.(2); 3.4.2.1 .(1) & (2), 3.4.2.5.(1 )(c)
Question:
Is it acceptable to design continually sloping parkade with exit stairs that are shared between
successive parkade levels?
Interpretation:
Yes
The principal concept of parkade exit systems is to provide access to 2 separate exits serving each
floor level. Therefore, a building with 5 parkade floor levels should be provided with 1 O exit doors
serving the parkade.
The location of the cut lines to distinguish successive floor levels is irrelevant if each floor level is
served by 2 exits and the maximum travel distance to an exit from anywhere within the floor area is
45m.
The slope of the floors must consider the accessible paths of travel and the access to exits.
The diagram below shows a possible layout.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0187 |
Tactile Warning Strips at Entry to a Vehicle Route |
27/09/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0187 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: September 27, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Tactile warning st rips at entry to a vehicle route
Keywords: Exits, Tactile Walking SeNice Indicators
Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.2.10 (3)(b)
Question:
Are the tactile warning strips required at the doors leading from the spaces like exit stairs,
elevator lobbies, storage rooms to the vehicular route?
Interpretation:
Yes.
As required by Clause 3.8.2. 10.(3)(b) tactile warning strips are required at all entries to a vehicular
route. The warning strips are placed before the door that opens directly onto the drive aisle to warn
pedestrians that there is danger behind the door and caution should be exercised.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0188 |
Ratio of Number of Lavatories to Water Closets |
17/05/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0188 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: May 17, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Ratio of number of lavatories to water closets
Keywords: Number of lavatories, water closets
Building Code Reference(s): 3.7.2.3.(1)
Sentence 3.7.2.3.(1) requires that at least 1 lavatory shall be provided in a room containing 1 or 2
water closets or urinals, and at least 1 additional lavatory shall be provided for each additional 2
water closets or urinals. Does this mean that for a washroom containing 3 water closets, the
minimum number of lavatories is only 1?
Interpretation:
Yes.
Based on the wording of Sentence 3.7.2.3.(1), 1 lavatory is required for the first 2 water closets.
Since the additional 3rd water closet is less than the additional increment of 2 water closets, no
additional lavatory is therefore required. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0189 |
Design by a Registered Professional for NFPA 13R and 13D Sprinkler Systems |
14/06/2022 |
File No: 18-0189
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
June 14, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Design by a Registered Professional for NFPA 13R and
13D Sprinkler Systems
NFPA 13R, NFPA 13D, Sprinkler System
Division C 2.2.7.1.(1 ), Division B 3.2.5.12, 9.10.1.3.(8)
In buildings regulated by Division B, Part 9, are sprinkler systems that comply with NFPA
13R or 13D required to be designed by a Registered Professional?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 2.2.7.1.(1) in Division C of the BCBC states the buildings and parts of buildings
where involvement by a Registered Professional is required. This includes Part 3 buildings,
and one of the other conditions is sprinkler systems in Part 9 buildings where the systems
are designed to NFPA 13 "Installation of Sprinkler Systems".
In other locations, the BCBC also references NFPA 13R "Installation of Sprinkler Systems in
Low-Rise Residential Occupancies" and NFPA 13D "Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Oneand
Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes".
For Part 9 buildings, Sentence 9.10.1.3.(8) states:
"Sprinkler systems shall be designed, constructed and installed in conformance with
Articles 3.2.5.12. to 3.2.5.15. and 3.2.5.17."
Sentence 3.2.5.12.(1) requires sprinkler systems to be designed to NFPA 13 except as
permitted by Sentences (2), (3) and (4). For a Part 9 building, which by definition is limited to
maximum 3 storeys in building height, Sentence 3.2.5.12.(2) permits a sprinkler system to be
designed to NFPA 13R for a building of Group C major occupancy that contains no other
major occupancies. Sentence 3.2.5.12.(3) permits a sprinkler system to be designed to NFPA 130 for a building of residential occupancy throughout that contains no more than 2
dwelling units.
The reference in Sentence 9.10.1 .3.(8) to Part 3 for the sprinkler system requirements does
not mean that a Part 9 building is considered to be a Part 3 building for the purposes of the
sprinkler system. The reference to Part 3 is intended to establish the applicable sprinkler
standards and the conditions in which they can be applied.
Division C Sentence 2.2.7.1 .(1 ) requires a Registered Professional for the design of NFPA 13
systems in Part 9 buildings, but not for NFPA 13R or 130 systems in Part 9 buildings. The
applicable provisions in Part 3 do not require a Registered Professional for NFPA 13R or 130
systems. Therefore, the BCBC does not require a Registered Professional for the design of
sprinkler systems to NFPA 13R or 130 in Part 9 buildings.
Sprinkler permits are issued by applicable local jurisdictions. The authority having jurisdiction
should be consulted as to whether there is a local requirement for a Registered Professional
for a sprinkler permit submittal, particularly for sprinkler systems designed to NFPA 13R.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0190 |
Foundations for Garage with Attached Carport |
22/11/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0190 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: November 22, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Foundations for Garage with Attached Carport
Keywords: Garage, Carport, Foundations
Building Code Reference(s): 9.35.2.1., 9.35.3.1.
Question:
In a building regulated by Division B Part 9, where a detached one storey garage that is not
of masonry or masonry veneer construction has an enclosed floor area less than 55 m2 but
also has an attached carport, are foundations required where:
1. The combined garage and carport area is 55 m2 or larger?
2. The combined garage and carport area is less than 55 m2?
Interpretation:
1. Yes.
Sentence 9.35.3.1.(1 ) requires the foundations for the support of carports and garages to
conform to Sections 9.12 and 9.15, except as permitted elsewhere in Subsection 9.35.3.
Sentence 9.35.3.1.(2) allows detached garages of less than 55 m2 and not more than one
storey, that are not of masonry or masonry veneer construction, to be supported on wood
mud sills or a 100 mm thick concrete slab.
Sentence 9.35.3.1.(1) refers to both carports and garages. Sentence 9.35.2.1.(1) states that
a roofed enclosure for storage or parking of motor vehicles is considered to be a garage if
more than 60% of the total perimeter is enclosed by walls, doors, or windows. The waiver in
Sentence 9.35.3.1.(2) is only for garages smaller than 55 m2. Where the area of the
detached structure is more than 55 m2, foundations are required throughout.
2 . Yes.
The area of the detached structure is less than 55 m2 but the waiver of Sentence
9.35.3.1 .(2) for small garages refers to detached garages. In this example the garage is
detached from the main building but it is attached to a carport. Carports, even where they
are attached to a garage, may have different conditions such as point loads from columns
and they must be evaluated separately with respect to the foundations required by
Sections 9.12 and 9.15. There is no exemption for carports based on their size. Since the
garage and the carport are one building, the garage is not considered to be a detached
garage. Therefore, Sentence 9.35.3.1.(2) which waives the requirement for foundations
for small detached garages is not applicable. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0191 |
Use of Mineral Wool in lieu of Fire Blocking |
19/07/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0191 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: July 19, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Use of Mineral Wool in lieu of Fire blocking
Keywords: Fire Blocking, Concealed Wall Space, Mineral Wool
Building Code Reference(s): 9.10.16.2.; 9.10.16.2.(2)(d)
Question:
Is it acceptable to replace the required fire blocking between the vertical concealed
space in the wall assembly and the horizontal concealed space in an adjacent dropped
ceiling if both the wall and dropped ceiling are filled with insulation based on the
provisions of Clause 9.10.16.2.(2)(d)?
Interpretation:
No.
The extent of the application of Clause 9.10.16.2.(2)(d), is limited to fire blocking used
between concealed wall spaces.
The requirements of Sentence 9.10.16.2.(1) establishes that the requirements of Article
9.10.16.2. are intended to address fire blocking in wall assemblies. The purpose of fire
blocking is to impede the spread of fire within concealed spaces which may lead to harm
to persons, or damage to the building, as generally established by the application
statement:
Intent 1: To limit the probability that concealed spaces within wall assemblies will not be separated at
certain locations, which could lead to the spread of fire within these spaces, which could lead to
harm to persons.
The purpose of Clauses 9.10.16.2.(2)(a) to (d) are to exempt certain wall spaces from fire
blocking, where measures described in Clauses (a) to (d) have been provided, on the
basis that they provide "an equivalent level of protection and the risk of fire spreading from
a concealed wall space to or through another concealed wall space is minimized."
However, the proposed use of mineral wool within a drop ceiling based on the mineral
wool fill described in Clauses 9.10.16.2.(2)(d) in concealed spaces other than concealed
wall spaces, lies outside the intended scope of the Article. As a consequence, it is unclear
if the performance of such a measure will remain equivalent, since mineral wool used in a
configuration other than within the prescribed wall assemblies, may not perform in the
expected manner.
The general principle of Part 9 design assumes prescriptive compliance, based in part on
the assumption of the conventional construction techniques described in this Part. When
used outside the scope identified by Part 9, risks or consideration of the measures
identified in 9.10.16.2.(2) may exist which have not been considered in the assumption of
equivalence by Part 9 requirements. For example, mineral wool in non-vertical orientations
may fall out or sag, allowing fire to propagate through the concealed space. Similarly,
mineral wool in larger enclosures, may compress, or distort under their own weight due to
a lack of the support assumed by conventional framed construction, allowing products of
combustion to pass.
Note that the Part 3 requirements for firestopping in 3.1.11.1., which are based on a
professional reliance model, includes the following additional intent statement: "To limit the
probability that fire blocking material used to block and separate concealed spaces will not
remain in place for a certain minimum time when subjected to fire conditions, which could
lead to the spread of fire within these spaces", which could further inform of the extent of
required performance.
A more rigorous evaluation of performance is therefore required for an authority having
jurisdiction in order to accept the proposal. Subject to the requirements of an authority
having jurisdiction, the use of mineral wool in lieu of fire blocking as an alternative solution
or professional judgement may be an acceptable approach.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0192 |
Integrity of Fire Rating Protection for Supporting Column |
27/09/2022 |
File No: 18-0192
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
September 27, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Integrity of fire rating protection for supporting column
Fire rating integrity, column, building services, access
hatch
3. 1.7.1.(2), D-2.6.5, 3.1.9.
Sentence 3.1.7.1.(2) permits an assembly of materials to be assigned a fire-resistance rating on the
basis of Appendix D. If a supporting column is thus protected in accordance with Appendix D-2.6.5;
1. Is it acceptable to have cast iron rainwater leader piping located inside the cavity of the fire rated
assembly enclosing the column?
2. Is it acceptable to have System 15 rated rainwater leader piping located inside the cavity of the
fire rated assembly enclosing the column?
3. If the answers to 1. and 2. are yes, is a fire rated access hatch required for cleanout access
related to drain pipes that are located inside the cavity of the fire rated assembly enclosing the
column?
4. Are horizontal joints permitted for the gypsum board membrane if a 2 layered gypsum board
system is used for the fire rated membrane, with joints overlapped?
Interpretation:
1. Yes.
If the protective fire rated assembly is properly attached to the column, the cast iron rainwater
leader located in the cavity is not likely to have an adverse effect on the performance of the
enclosing fire rated gypsum membrane assembly. Since insulation is not required in the cavity for
fire protection purposes, any piping located in the cavity would not have the effect of
compromising such a requirement for insulation. However, insulation may be required for other
reasons, such as the Plumbing Code.
Firestopping to Section 3.1.9 requirements must be provided if the piping penetrates the fire rated
assembly.
2. Yes.
If the protective fire rated assembly is properly attached to the column, the System 15 rated
rainwater leader located in the cavity is not likely to have an adverse effect on the performance of
the enclosing fire rated gypsum membrane assembly. The plastic piping would likely fail at a
much lower temperature than the column.
Since insulation is not required in the cavity for fire protection purposes, any piping located in the
cavity would not have the effect of compromising such a requirement for insulation. However,
insulation may be required for other reasons, such as the Plumbing Code.
Firestopping to Section 3.1.9 requirements must be provided if the piping penetrates the fire rated
assembly.
3. Yes, subject to installation requirements.
Any required access to building services located inside the cavity of the fire rated assembly
enclosing the column, such as to cleanout junctions, must be protected with a fire rated closure
such as a fire rated access hatch. The performance of the continuity of fire rated enclosure is
dependent on reliable fire rated access hatch details and listings. Detailing considerations should
include practicality of opening and closing or removal and replacement of the fire rated access
hatch, to address the risk of the access opening being left open after maintenance or repair work.
Signage should be provided advising that the fire rated hatch must be kept closed for protection.
4. Yes, subject to installation requirements.
Appendix D reference 0-2.6.5.(2) indicates the Type X gypsum board shall be applied vertically
without horizontal joints. This is interpreted to mean unsupported horizontal joints. If the joints are
properly supported to prevent premature opening of the gypsum board joints, then the protection
performance would be acceptable. This applies to single layer or multiple layer situations. Even if
layers of gypsum board are overlapped, proper continuous joint support must be provided for the
gypsum board fasteners penetrating past the inner gypsum board layer.
Careful consideration must be given to coordinating and integrating the various Code requirements
beyond fire protection, such as but limited to: thermal and condensation effects, components
movement, and Part 5 provisions.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0193 |
Location of Pipes in Exterior Wall |
22/11/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0193 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: November 22, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Location of pipes in exterior wall
Keywords: Exterior wall, Insulation, Vapour barrier
Building Code Reference(s): 9.25.4.3.; BCPC A-2.3.5.4.
Question:
Is the water supply and DWV piping located in exterior walls required to be on the warm side of the
vapour barrier?
Interpretation:
The building code does not address this issue, but it is good design practice to consider
condensation and effectiveness of the vapour barrier.
9.25.4.3.(2) requires a minimal air gap between the inside face of the insulation and the vapour
barrier.
Yes - for cold water supply
Cold-water supply water pipes during cold days create condensation on their surface due to
difference of temperature and high moisture content of indoor air. The cold-water supply pipes
should not be located inside the space with thermal insulation as the condensation could damage the
value of insulation and propagate rot growth. Installing the cold-water pipe on the inside face of the
vapour barrier (warm side) will protect the insulation from moisture damage. It should be noted that
the cold-water pipe will still create condensation between the vapour barrier and the interior wall
sheathing and therefore pipe insulation should be considered.
No - for DWV pipes and hot water pipes
DWV pipes and hot water pipes are not subject to condensation, so they may be installed between
the warm side of the insulation and the vapour barrier. Refer also to Notes to Plumbing Code A-
2.3.5.4. that refer to TIAC "Mechanical Insulation Best Practices Guide". |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0194 |
Part 5 Wind Loads on Free-Standing Canopy |
27/09/2022 |
File No: 18-0194 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: September 27, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Part 5 Wind Loads on Free-Standing Canopy
Keywords: Environmental separation, wind load, canopy
Building Code Reference(s): 5.2.2.2., A-5.2.2.2.
Question:
Does Article 5.2.2.2. for determining wind loads apply to a free-standing canopy where there is no
separation in dissimilar environments?
Interpretation:
Yes
As stated in the Notes to Part 5 - A-5.2.2.2., "The wind load provisions apply to roofing and other
materials subject to wind-uplift loads".
Article 5.2.2.2. applies to components that separate dissimilar environments or are exposed to the
exterior and are subject to wind loads.
All roofing systems for a freestanding canopy, including fabric type canopies, must be designed for
wind-uplift loads in accordance with Article 5.2.2.2.
Please note that the structural frame and anchorage to foundation would still need to be designed to Part 4. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0195 |
Polyethylene Piping Permitted Uses in a Drainage System |
19/07/2022 |
File No: 18-0195
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
July 19, 2022
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC)
Polyethylene Piping Permitted Uses in a Drainage
System
Polyethylene, High-Density Polyethylene, Building
Sewer, Drainage System, Venting System
2.2.5.5.(1 ), Table A-2.2. 5., 2.2.6. and 2.2.7.
Sentence 2.2.5.5.(1) states that Polyethylene piping can only be used underground outside a building for
the rehabilitation of existing drainage systems using trenchless technology and it shall be High Density
Polyethylene (HOPE), however Table A.2.2.5., 2.2.6. and 2.2.7. states that Polyethylene pipe can be
used underground under a building in a drainage or venting system.
Is this a conflict in the Code?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 2.2.5.5.(1) requires that when using trench less technology, HOPE shall only be used outside a
building in a drainage system. However, polyethylene may be used underground under a building on a
drainage or venting system using traditional cut and fill methods. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0196 |
Connection of Sewage Sump Vent to Other Pipes in a Venting System |
27/09/2022 |
File No: 18-0196
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
September 27, 2022
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC)
Connection of Sewage Sump Vent to Other Pipes in a
Venting System
Venting System, Sewage Sump Vent
2.5.5.1.(1 ), 2.5.7.7.(1) and (2)
1. Can the required vent for a sewage sump be connected to other parts of a venting system (such as the
3" vent for a sanitary building drain)?
2. If the answer to question #1 is yes, what would the hydraulic load be for the sewage sump vent?
Interpretation:
1. Yes,
The BCPC provides no restriction which prohibits the connection of a sewage sump vent to another
part of the venting system in a building.
2. The BCPC provides no direction on assigning a hydraulic load on the vent for a sewage sump. This is
very similar to the required 3" vent for a sanitary building drain, which likewise, has no hydraulic load
assigned. It is important to note that in accordance with Sentences 2.5.7.7.(1) and (2), the minimum
size of the sewage sump vent is 2" but at least one size smaller than the largest inlet pipe to the
sewage sump (also it need not be larger than 4"). In addition, the fixtures which drain to the sewage
sump are vented and their assigned hydraulic load would be accounted for in the venting system. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0197 |
Vents for Oil Interceptors Connected to a Storm Drainage System |
27/09/2022 |
File No: 18-0197
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
September 27, 2022
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC)
Vents for Oil Interceptors Connected to a Storm
Drainage System
Oil Interceptor, Required Venting
2.5.5.2.(1 ), 2.5.1.1.(4)(a)(ii)
If an oil interceptor is permitted to be connected to a storm drainage system;
1. Do the requirements in regard to venting of the oil interceptor contained in Sentence 2.5.5.2.(1)
apply, or;
2. Can the exemption provided for in Subclause 2.5.1.1.(4)(a)(ii) be applied?
Interpretation:
1. Yes
The requirements for venting of an oil interceptor contained in Sentence 2.5.5.2.(1) do apply.
2. No
There is no reference to Subclause 2.5.1.1.(4)(a)(ii) which would waive the venting requirements
regarding traps serving storm drainage systems.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0199 |
Structural Design of Guards in Part 9 Buildings |
27/09/2022 |
File No: 18-0199 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: September 27, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Structural Design of Guards in Part 9 Buildings
Keywords: Structural design, guards
Building Code Reference(s): 9.4. 1.1., 9.8.8.2.(1) & (4)
Question:
1. Sentence 9.8.8.2.(1) states that "Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (4), guards shall be
designed to resist the specified loads prescribed in Table 9.8.8.2." Does the term "designed"
mean to meet the requirements of Article 9.4.1.1.?
2. Article 9.4.1.1. only applies to "structural members". Are guards considered to be "structural
members" for the purposes of Article 9.4.1 .1 .
3. Article 9.8.8.2. does not specifically say that the structural design of guards must include the
load factors described in Part 4. Is it the intent that the load factors in Part 4 be applied to
guards in Part 9 building?
Interpretation:
1. Yes (with some exceptions)
Sentences 9.8.8.2.(2) and (4) waive the requirement for structural design of interior guards
within dwelling units and exterior guards serving not more that 2 dwelling units. Refer to the
previous Interpretation 18-0081 for further discussion on this matter.
2. Yes
Guards are "secondary structural members". Except as permitted in Sentences 9.8.8.2.(2) and
(4), guards in Part 9 buildings are a critical safety component of a building and must be
designed to Article 9.4.1 .1.
3. Yes (in some instances)
Article 9.8.8.2. only provides the Part 9 loads used for the design of guards in Part 9 buildings.
Article 9.4.1.1. provides 3 options for the method of applying the structural design in a Part 9
building:
• (1 )(a) - prescriptive requirements of Part 9,
• (1 )(b) - good engineering practice such as ewe 2014, or
• (1 )(c) - design to Part 4 using the loads from either Part 9 or Part 4.
If the structural designer elects to use 9.4.1.1.(1 )(c) then the Part 4 load factors would apply.
Again, the exceptions in Sentences 9.8.8.2.(2) and (4) would apply. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0200 |
Positioning of Bottom Edge of Vision Panel at Doors |
22/11/2022 |
File No: 18-0200
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
November 22, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Positioning of Bottom Edge of Vision Panel at Doors
Vision Panel, Height, Bottom Edge, Door Hardware,
Maximum Area of Wired Glass in a Door, Exit Doors, Fire
Department Access, Cross Over Floors
3.1.8.18.(1 ), 3.3.1.13.(5), 3.3.1.19.(6), 3.4.1.8.(1 ),
3.4.6.18.(4)(b)
Sentence 3.3.1.19.(6) requires that where vision glass is provided in doors, the lowest edge of the
glass shall be no higher than 900mm above floor level.
Questions:
1. Sentence 3.3.1.13.(5) requires door release hardware to be installed between 900mm and
1100mm above the finished floor. Does this requirement conflict with the vision panel
positioning requirements of Sentence 3.3.1.19.(6)?
2. Sentence 3.1.8.18.(1) limits the area of wired glass permitted at certain fire rated doors. Does
this requirement conflict with the vision panel positioning requirements of Sentence
3.3.1.19.(6)?
3. Sentence 3.4.1.8.(1) requires that glass and transparent panels in an exit conform to the
"appropriate" requirements in Article 3.3.1.19. Is it appropriate to apply Sentence 3.3.1.19.(6) to
exit stair doors?
Interpretation:
1. Yes.
There are likely to be conditions where the positioning of vision panels having the bottom edge
at 900mm above the floor will be in conflict with certain types of door hardware, such as panic
hardware required to be mounted at a height between 900mm and 1100mm above the finished
floor. If possible, an additional vision panel could be installed below the panic hardware. This
would be considered a bottom extension of the vision panel provided above the panic or other
door hardware, subject to limits on maximum area of wired glass in fire rated doors.
The related intent statement is: to limit the probability that persons, including children, people of
short stature and those using a wheelchair, will not be able to see or be seen through glazing
that is too high, which could lead to persons being hit, which could lead to harm to persons; or
which could lead to confusion, which could lead to delays in the evacuation or movement of
persons to a safe place, which could lead to harm to persons.
2. Yes.
Where there are limits to the area of wired glass permitted in a door, this may be a challenge to
manipulate the vision panel height/width, or to locate the bottom edge of the panel at 900mm
above the floor, while still attempting to maintain the panel vision at the typical occupant
percentile eye level. If the wired glass vision panel is narrowed to lengthen the height of the
panel, the resulting width may be too narrow to serve effectively as a vision panel. In addition,
the fire department access provisions of Clause 3.4.6.18.(4)(b) could also be compromised if the
glass panel is too narrow the allow pass through of an arm. Special listed fire rated glass
allowing larger vision panels in fire rated doors is a possible option to resolve the conflict.
Yes.
Use of the word "appropriate" in Sentence 3.4.1.8.(1) is interpreted to mean "applicable".
However, vision panels are not required for exit doors, unless required under Clause
3.4.6.18.(4)(b) for fire department access at cross over levels.
Where vision panels are incorporated into exit doors, meeting the requirements of Sentence
3.3. 1.1 9.(6) presents challenges that need to be addressed. Exit stair enclosures and protective
closures are intended to be effective in maintaining integrity. It may not be appropriate to
incorporate designs, such as increased vision panel sizes, that could reduce the effectiveness of
exit integrity, including such as during a seismic event.
Manipulating the vision panel height/width or repositioning it, could reduce the effectiveness of
the vision panel. Lowering the position of a restricted size vision panel could reduce the
percentile of occupants effectively served. If the wired glass panel is narrowed to lengthen the
height of the panel, the resulting width may be too narrow to serve effectively as a vision panel.
In addition, the fire department access provisions of Clause 3.4.6.18.(4)(b) could also be
compromised if the glass panel is too narrow the allow pass through of an arm.
See also previous discussions under previous questions 1 and 2.
A Code change proposal may be warranted to resolve these challenges.
Since the building code does not mandate where vision panels are required, the wording of
Sentence 3.3.1.19.(6) encourages the elimination of vision panels which directly conflicts with
the original intent.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0201 |
Wireless Interconnection of Smoke Alarms |
27/09/2022 |
File No: 18-0201 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: September 27, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Wireless interconnection of smoke alarms
Keywords: Smoke alarms, interconnection, wireless
Building Code Reference(s): 9. 10.19.4.(1 )(a), 9. 10.19.5.(1)
Question:
In a single dwelling unit which is provided with electrical power and where more than 1 smoke
alarm is required, can the smoke alarms be interconnected wirelessly to meet the requirements of
Article 9.10.19.5.?
Interpretation:
Yes
Clause 9.10.19.4.(1 )(a) requires that smoke alarms be hard wired with permanent connections to
an electrical circuit.
Sentence 9. 10. 19.4.(2) permits smoke alarms to be battery operated when the building is not
supplied with electrical power.
The wording of Sentence 9.10.1 9.5.(1) was revised in Revision 2.01 to read:
"Where more than one smoke alarm is required in a dwelling unit, the smoke alarms shall be
interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm will cause all alarms within the dwelling unit to
sound."
The previous wording of Sentence 9.10.19.5.(1) used to term "wired" rather than
"interconnected".
With this revised wording, the interconnection between smoke alarms could be done wirelessly,
but each smoke alarm must be hard wired to electrical power per Clause 9.10.19.4.(1 )(a).
It should be noted that the smoke alarm must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations which include a wireless survey periodically over the life of the device.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0202 |
Spiral Stair for Basement Storage Unit |
18/10/2022 |
File No: 18-0202 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: October 18, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Spiral Stair for Basement Storage Unit
Keywords: Stair, Curved Flights, Tapered Treads
Building Code Reference(s): 9.8.3.1 , 9.8.4.1 , 9.8.4.2
Question:
Where a spiral stair is integrated with a basement wine storage unit (wine cellar) in a
dwelling unit, is the stair required to comply with the Building Code?
Interpretation:
Yes.
This condition refers to a wine cellar consisting of stacked prefabricated ring-type units that
form a circular shape, with a spiral stair in the centre that provides access to wine stored at
different levels in the storage system, with standing space on the floor at the bottom of the
stair.
The area at the bottom of the stair is defined by the BCBC as "floor area". The BCBC does
not differentiate between stair requirements for storage areas or for other areas within a
dwelling unit. Articles 9.8.4.1 and 9.8.4.2 waive the stair rise and run requirements for stairs
that serve only areas used as service rooms or service spaces. There is no waiver for stairs
serving storage areas within dwelling units.
Regardless of whether the area is inhabited on a regular basis, the stair serving the wine
cellar is required to comply with BCBC requirements for stairs within dwelling units.
Tapered treads and curved flights are permitted, subject to dimensional and other
requirements in the BCBC. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0203 |
Ramp Design |
18/10/2022 |
File No: 18-0203 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: October 18, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Ramp design
Keywords:
Ramps, Landings, Guards, Handrails, Warning
indicators
Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.6.7.(1), 3.8.3.2.(2)(g)
Question:
Sentence 3.4.6.7.(1) requires that, except as required for aisles by Article 3.3.2.5., the maximum
slope of a ramp shall be
a) 1 in 1 0 in any assembly, care, treatment, detention or residential occupancy,
b) 1 in 6 in an industrial occupancy,
c) 1 in 8 in all other occupancies, and
d) 1 in 1 0 for an exterior ramp.
Does this mean that if not in an accessible path of travel, within the specific occupancy, a travel
surface less steep than the maximum slope could be interpreted as not considered a ramp; and
therefore, does not require landings, guards, handrails, and warning indicators required by Section
3.4?
Interpretation:
No.
Typically a sloped surface for pedestrian use with a slope of more than 1 in 20 is considered a ramp
and must be designed as such. Sentence 3.4.6.7.(1) only sets out the maximum slopes of ramps not
in an accessible path of travel, for specific occupancies. Sloped surfaces less than the prescribed
maximums and exceeding 1 in 20 are still considered ramps. This is confirmed by Clause
3.8.3.2.(2)(g). It is also better clarified in the National Building Code of Canada 2020 which has a
definition for ramps as "a path of travel having a slope steeper than 1 in 20".
Therefore, a sloped pedestrian travel path not used by persons with disabilities, but exceeding a
1 in 20 slope, must be designed as a ramp, along with applicable features required for ramps in
Section 3.4, such as landings, guards, handrails, and warning indicators. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0206 |
Permanent Label |
13/12/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0206 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Permanent Label
Keywords:
Permanent, Label, Markings, Manufacturer
identification
Building Code Reference(s): 9.7.4.2.(1 )(b)
Question:
Clause 9.7.4.2.(1 )(b) references CSA A440S1, "Canadian Supplement to AAMA/WDMA/CSA
101/I.S.2/A440, NAFS - North American Fenestration Standard/Specification tor Windows, Doors,
and Skylights". This Supplement has a requirement under reference 6.4.1 tor a permanent
marking of manufacturer identification. Some manufacturers provide this permanent marking via the
National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) product labeling requirements as per NFRC 700
Reference 6.
1. What is considered a "permanent" marking or label?
2. Is the NFRC label considered permanent it it is a paper adhesive label that cannot be
removed without destroying it?
3. Does the NFRC permanent label (or a temporary removable but not reusable label) provide
compliance when the manufacturer identity is included on it?
Interpretation:
1. There are a few documents that can be used tor guidance.
Guidelines tor the labelling and Qromotion of Energ)'. Star certified fenestration Qroducts sold in
Canada tor example, states on p 4 and 8: ''The permanent label or mark is placed in a location
normally hidden from view but easily accessible. On a non-operable product, the permanent label
may be made from clear label stock and affixed to a location out of the direct line of view such as the
top corner of the glass."
NAFS Labeling Guidelines tor Canada b)'. Fenestration Canada
CSA A440S1 Reference 6.4.1 requires that all fenestration products bear a permanent marking
indicating the manufacturer's identity in a location that is visible when the product is installed.
ways:
• An etching or marking on the product frame, hardware or glass
• A label that is not intended for removal without destroying or defacing the label and commonly
referred to as a "permanent label".
The permanent label is intended to be a long-lasting identification of manufacturer and description
of the fenestration product. When windows are newly installed, they contain both the temporary
label and permanent label. The temporary label is usually a sticker placed on the glass pane. The
temporary label is to remain in place until the building inspector has reviewed the content of the
label; the contractor can then remove the temporary label.
The permanent labels are usually installed in places not directly visible. For example, the
permanent label may be applied on the bottom side of the sash; or on a fixed window, a clear label
on the top corners of the glass (out of sight). These permanent labels should be difficult to remove.
They are also typically located such that occupants do not normally see the labels.
The guidelines are clear as to the content to be included on the marking or label.
2. Yes.
NAFS Labeling Guidelines for Canada by Fenestration Canada indicates a label that is not
intended for removal without destroying or defacing the label and commonly referred to as a
"permanent label".
3. Yes.
The NFRC permanent label (or a temporary removable but not reusable label) provides
compliance when the manufacturer identity is included on it. The guidelines set out other additional
information required to be shown on the label. Refer to the guidelines mentioned in item 1. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0207 |
Exit Exposure Protection Without a Stair or Ramp (revised) |
17/01/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0207 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: November 22, 2022 (Revised Jan 17, 2023)
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Exit Exposure Protection Without a Stair or Ramp
Keywords: exit, exposure, protection, stair, ramp
Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.3.13.(2), 3.4.4.3., 9.9.4.4.(1)
Question:
1 . For Part 3 buildings, Sentence 3.2.3. 13.(2) requires exit exposure protection of unprotected
openings near exterior exit stairs or exit ramps. Does this requirement also apply to exterior exit
walkways?
2. For Part 9 buildings, Sentence 9.9.4.4.(1) requires exit exposure protection of unprotected
openings near exterior exit stairs or exit ramps. Does this requirement also apply to exterior exit
walkways?
Interpretation:
1. No (except in certain instances)
Exit is defined in Article 1.4.1.2. of Division C as follows:
"Exit means that part of a means of egress, including doorways, that leads from the floor area it
serves to a separate building, an open public thoroughfare, or an exterior open space
protected from fire exposure from the building and having access to an open public
thoroughfare. (See Note A-1.4.1.2.(1).)"
So an exterior walkway that serves as a means of egress from a building and leads from the
building to an open space is similar to an "exterior exit passageway" if you can travel in 2
different directions.
Article 3.2.3.13. identifies the locations where "Protection of Exit Facilities" are required. Article
3.2.3.13. addresses exterior exit doors, stairs and ramps, but there is no specific reference in
Article 3.2.3.13. to "exterior exit walkways".
Article 3.4.4.3. waives the requirements for fire separation and exit exposure protection of
exterior passageways when not less than 50% of the exterior side of the passageway is open
to the outdoors, and an exit stair is provided at each end of the passageway. This Article
addresses elevated passageways, but an exterior passageway at grade would not require exit
stairs at each end because there are no stairs required to reach an acceptable open space.
The principle is that if an occupant exiting a building can travel in 2 separate directions to reach
an acceptable open space, then exit exposure protection of the exterior passageway is not
required.
In the instance where an occupant exiting a building is forced to travel in front of an
unprotected opening in a separate fire compartment to reach an acceptable open space, exit
exposure protection of the exterior passageway should be provided.
Refer to previous Interpretations 06-0058, 12-0009 and 18-0168 for further information.
2. No (except in certain instances)
Except as noted below, the rationale described above for Part 3 buildings would also apply to
Part 9 buildings.
As per Clause 9.9.4.4.(1 ){a), exit exposure protection is not required for an unenclosed
exterior exit stair or ramp {or an exterior exit walkway) when such facilities serve a suite
that is provided with a second means of egress.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0209 |
Rainwater Leaders Connecting to a Dry Well |
22/11/2022 |
File No: 18-0209
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, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Rainwater Leaders Connecting to a Dry Well
Rainwater Leaders, Dry Well
2.1.2.2.(1), 9.14.5.3., 9.26.18.2.(1)
Can rainwater leaders drain to a dry well (rock pit) which is installed in accordance with Article 9.14.5.3.?
Interpretation:
Yes,
Sentence 2.1.2.2.(1) of the BC Plumbing Code states that "Except as provided in in Subsection 2.7.4.,
every storm drainage system shall be connected to a public storm sewer, a public combined sewer or a
designated storm water disposal location."
A properly designed dry well would be considered a designated storm water disposal location and would
also comply with the requirement of Sentence 9.26.18.2. (1 ).
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0210 |
Fire Blocks in Walls with Minor Combustible Components |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0210
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Questions:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION
December 13, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Fire Blocks in Walls with Minor Combustible
Components
Fire Blocks, Minor Combustible
3.1.5.2., 3.1.11.2., 3.1.11.4., 3.1.11.7
In a building where noncombustible construction is required, does the addition of
acceptable minor combustible components within a wall assembly mean that the fire
blocks are required within the walls or between vertical and horizontal concealed spaces?
No.
In a building where noncombustible construction is required, Sentence 3.1.5.2.(1) allows
minor combustible components including wood backing within wall assemblies, intended for
the attachment of handrails, fixtures, and similar items mounted on the wall surface.
Sentence 3.1.11.2.(1) requires fire blocks to block off concealed spaces within a wall
assembly. Sentence 3.1.11.2.(2) waives the requirement for fire blocks under certain
conditions, including that the exposed construction materials and any insulation within the
wall space are noncombustible. Sentence 3.1.11.4.(1) requires fire blocks at all
interconnections between concealed vertical and horizontal concealed spaces in ceilings and
soffits, and at the end of each run and at each floor level in concealed spaces between stair
stringers, in which the exposed construction materials have a flame spread rating more than
25. The fire blocks are required to conform with Article 3.1.11 .7.
As stated in the Notes to Part 3, fire blocking is intended to reduce the risk of fire spread in
combustible concealed spaces. Where minor combustible components are permitted by
Sentence 3.1.5.2.(1 ), the type of construction is still considered to be noncombustible. To be
acceptable, these combustible components must be minor and are assumed to not be
significant or continuous, such that they would not allow fire spread within a wall assembly or
between horizontal and vertical assemblies.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0212 |
Continuous Illumination for Emergency Lighting |
17/01/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0212 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: January 17, 2023
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Continuous Illumination for Emergency Lighting
Keywords: Emergency Lighting
Building Code Reference(s): 3.2.7.3
Question:
Is emergency lighting required to continuously illuminate the areas that require
emergency lighting?
Yes.
Sentence 3.2.7.3.(1) lists the locations that require emergency lighting, and requires a
minimum average emergency lighting level of 10 Ix at floor or tread level in those locations.
Sentence 3.2.7.3.(3) requires minimum illumination value (i.e. the minimum spot illumination)
to be 1 Ix.
The BCBC does not address whether the emergency lighting can be automatically controlled
and activated, such as by motion sensors. However, emergency lighting is intended for a
relatively short duration, of 30 min, 1 h or 2 h depending on the building. Emergency lighting
facilitates emergency activities such as evacuation of a building, and it is not intended for
most normal building activities. During an emergency there may be other factors that affect
motion sensors, such as smoke or fallen objects that block the field of view of a sensor.
Therefore, it is interpreted that emergency lighting is required to continuously illuminate the
areas where emergency lighting is required, for the intended time duration.
Note that, due to the prevalence of LED lighting which uses less power than traditional
lighting, it has become common for most lighting circuits in some buildings to be connected
to emergency power. This results in emergency lighting levels that may be much higher than
the minimum BCBC requirement. In those situations, only the lighting needed to provide the
minimum required emergency illumination must be continuous.
Sentence 3.2.7.3. (1) states that emergency lighting "shall be provided". This does not
include any provision for the emergency lighting not to be provided or for the emergency
lighting levels to be reduced in the locations where they are required.
For normal (non-emergency) lighting, Sentence 3.2.7.1 .(1 ) requires that the specified
locations "shall be equipped to provide" the required illumination. This does not require the
minimum normal lighting levels to be provided at all times. Subject to agreement from the
authority having jurisdiction, motion sensors could be used to control the required normal
lighting levels. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0213 |
Membrane Ceiling used as a Fire Separation |
22/11/2022 |
File No: 18-0213 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: November 22, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Membrane ceiling used as a fire separation
Keywords: Membrane ceiling, shaft ceiling
Building Code Reference(s): 0-2.3.12.; 3.1.7.1.; 3.1 .7.3.(1 )
Question:
1. Is a horizontal floor construction using the membrane that provides the entire fireresistance
rating as per Appendix 0-2.3.12. allowed to be a fire separation?
2. Can the membrane that provides the entire fire-resistance rating of the floor
construction be supported from the structure that it protects above?
Interpretation:
1. Yes
As per Sentence 3.1.7.3.(1) the horizontal assemblies shall be rated for exposure from fire
from the underside. It is commonly understood that the buildup of the structure above will
provide the assembly above protected from the rising temperature providing that this
assembly is continuous and with no unprotected penetrations. On the same note, the
membrane ceiling will protect the structure above for adequate time as a fire-resistance
rating and fire separation. Note, that the membrane ceiling is limited to a maximum fireresistance
rating of 60 min. For fire separations that require higher fire-resistance rating the
properly tested assembly must be used as entire horizontal assembly or horizontally tested
shaft ceiling.
2. Yes
The membrane ceiling may be installed directly suspended from the structure above with
membrane fasteners per 0-2.3.9.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0214 |
Door Swing |
17/01/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0214 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: January 17, 2023
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Door swing
Keywords: Door, stair riser
Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.6.11.
Question:
In a Part 3 building, is the 300mm distance of a door leading edge to an exit stair riser
required for the door in all possible orientations on the landing?
Interpretation:
Yes
Article 3.4.6.11 . requires 300 mm clearance without any exceptions.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0215 |
Exit Width Reduction at Door Swings |
13/12/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0215 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Exit width reduction at door swings
Keywords: Exit width, reduction, door swing, stairs
Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.3.3.(2)
Question:
Can a door swing reduce the exit width to 750 mm in an exit corridor?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 3.4.3.3.(2) only permits a door swing to reduce the required width of an exit to
750 mm at exit stairs and landings.
Sentence 3.4.3.3.(2) further states that the door swing cannot reduce the width of an exit
passageway to less than the minimum required width.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0216 |
Occupant Load of Residential Suites |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0216 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Occupant load of residential suites
Keywords: Short-term rentals, occupant load, residential suites
Building Code Reference(s):
Division B: 9.9.1.3.(2) ; 9.10.18.2; 3.1.17.1.
Division A: 1.4.1.2.(1)
Question:
An existing residential suite in a multi-family building is proposed to be used as a short-term
rental. This will change the use and layout of the suite such that there will be 2 beds in each
bedroom and sofa beds in the living area resulting in an occupant load of 22 persons.
1. Sentence 9.9.1.3.(2) requires the occupant load in residential occupancies to be based on
two (2) persons per sleeping room. Can the occupant load be increased beyond the values
stated in Sentence 9.9.1.3.(2) and Table 3.1.17.1.?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, does this change the occupancy classification to
assembly?
Interpretation:
1. Yes
In accordance with the BCBC, the method to calculate occupant load in a residential suite is two
(2) persons per sleeping room. However, in the case of short-term rentals it may be reasonable
to calculate the occupant load based on the number sleeping spaces on beds.:. (The number of
sleeping spaces on beds will likely provide a better indication of the number of occupants.) If a
lower occupant load factor is used which results in a higher occupant load, then the life safety
requirements (such as exit width, fire alarm system etc.) should be reviewed so it is consistent
with the increase in occupants. "Design occupant" load is discussed in more detail in
Interpretation 18-0059.
The User's Guide to the 1995 NBC supports this approach:
The principal applications of occupant load are to determine the number and width of exit
facilities that must be provided, the width of access routes leading to exits from within floor
areas, the number of sanitary fixtures required in washrooms, whether a fire alarm system
must be installed .... Table 3.1.16.1. is not intended to limit the number of occupants in an
area, although it is sometimes misinterpreted this way.
For example, even though the table lists 9.3 m2 per person for offices, it is quite permissible
to have offices that provide less space per person. In this case, the occupant load of the
offices would be higher than that normally anticipated ... (NBC User's Guide, 23)
2. No
The BCBC defines residential occupancy as "occupancy or use of a building or part thereof by
persons for whom sleeping accommodation is provided but who are not harboured for the
purpose of receiving care or treatment and are not involuntari ly detained."
Although a short-term rental may occasionally have a slightly higher occupant load than a typical
residential suite, the use is still consistent with the definition of residential occupancy. In this
case, the occupancy classification can remain residential. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0217 |
Clearance for Lavatory |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0217 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Clearance for Lavatory
Keywords: Lavatory, Clear Floor Space
Building Code Reference(s): 3.8.3.15.(1)
Questions:
Is the clear floor space at a lavatory as required by Clause 3.8.3.15.(1 )(b) permitted to
extend under the lavatory?
No, if designed to Section 3.8 of the BCBC.
Clause 3.8.3.15.(1 )(b) requires a clear floor space in front of the lavatory, of not less than 920
mm wide by 1350 mm deep centred on the lavatory. This clear floor space is required to be
in front of the lavatory, as stated in Clause 3.8.3.15.(1 )(b).
Figure 3.8.3.11.-A of the Building Accessibility Handbook 2020 shows a washroom layout,
with the clear floor area at a sink labelled in two different locations. In one of these locations,
the clear floor area is shown in front of the sink but in the other location it extends under the
sink which does not comply with Clause 3.8.3.15.(1 )(b). However, Table 3.8.3.1 of the BCBC
allows provisions of CSA B651 "Accessible Design for the Built Environment" to be applied
on a line by line basis (refer to Interpretation 18-0008), as an alternative to the BCBC
requirements. Article 6.2.3.1 of CSA B651 requires a clear floor space of 800 mm by 1350
mm, centred on the lavatory, and up to 480 mm of this space is permitted to extend under the
lavatory.
Therefore, although not stated in the Building Accessibility Handbook, Figure 3.8.3.11.-A
shows both options for compliance with requirements for clear space at a lavatory, i.e., the
BCBC requirement and the CSA B651 requirement. Note that if the CSA B651 requirement
is followed, all accessible washrooms in the building must conform with CSA B651. It is not
permitted to mix the BCBC and CSA B651 requirements for washrooms, as stated in
Interpretation 18-0008. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0218 |
Top Plates for Wood Stud Loadbearing Walls |
13/12/2022 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0218 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Top Plates for Wood Stud Loadbearing Walls
Keywords: Top, plate, number
Building Code Reference(s): 9.23.11 .3.(1 ), Tables 9.23.3.4. & 9.23.11.4.
Question:
For Part 9 buildings, Sentence 9.23.11 .3.(1) states "at least two top plates shall be provided in
loadbearing walls".
7.3.2. of the CWC 2014 "Engineering Guide to Wood Frame Construction", which is referenced in
Clause 9.4.1.1.(1 )(b), states that loadbearing wood stud walls shall be capped with double top
plates.
Previous BCIC Interpretation 12-0060 notes that conventional wood frame construction consists of
double top plates.
1. Is there a limit to the maximum number of top plates permitted in a loadbearing wall?
e.g., could a loadbearing wall have 5 (or more) top plates and still conform to Part 9?
2. If there is no limit to the maximum number of top plates permitted, is the nailing pattern for
each successive plate based on Table 9.23.3.4. for loadbearing walls and Table 9.23.11.4.
for Braced Wall Bands?
Interpretation:
1 . No (with cautionary note)
There is no limitation in Part 9 as the number of top plates in a loadbearing wood stud wall, but
multiple top plates could result in excessive shrinkage in the wall assembly which could have a
detrimental effect on the performance of the building. For example, Clauses 9.26.3.1.(5)(a) and
9.27.3.8.(4)(b) require the design to accommodate shrinkage of the building frame.
2. Yes
The nailing pattern for top plates in Tables 9.23.3.4. & 9.23.11.4. would apply to each
successive top plate.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0219 |
Multiple Transitions from ABS to PVC Piping in a Drainage System |
22/11/2022 |
File No: 18-0219
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
November 22, 2022
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC)
Multiple Transitions from ABS to PVC Piping in a
Drainage System
Drainage System, Transition Solvent Cement
2.2.5.10.(2), 2.2.5.9.(2) (2015 National Plumbing Code)
Can transition solvent cement be used to facilitate multiple transitions within a drainage system from
ABS to PVC piping material?
Interpretation:
No,
Sentence 2.2.5.10.(2) states, "Transition solvent cement shall only be used for joining an ABS
drainage system to a PVC drainage system." The wording tends to indicate that only a single transition
from one drainage system (not plural) to another, such as from an ABS building drain to a PVC
building sewer, is compliant. However, the definition of a drainage system includes all aspects of
drainage from the upper vent connection point to the downstream public sewer or private sewage
disposal system.
The committee understands that the BCPC is not specific as to where these transitions may occur and
that drainage systems can be extensive and site specific conditions may merit other considerations.
The Intent Statement attributed to Sentence 2.2.5.1 0.(2). (please note that it is Sentence 2.2.5.9.(2) in
the 2015 National Plumbing Code included in this Interpretation), is clear that the intent is to limit the
probability that an inappropriate cement will be used which could result in joint failure.
The committee supports the statement from Appeal Board Decision #1566 (attached) that the ASTM
Standard (ASTM D3138) referenced in the CSA Standards for both ABS and PVC pipe that (quoted
from Note 1) "The intention was not to create a specification for an all-purpose ABS-PVC solvent
cement that would be used for mixing of ABS and PVC piping mate rials nor to specify a cement that
could generally be used for either material." Multiple transitions between different piping materials in a
drainage system can be better accomplished by other means.
This Interpretation is also consistent with the previous POABC Interpretation, POA2007 (also
attached).
Sentence 2.2.5.9.(2)
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0220 |
Dampproofing of Foundation Wall below Ground Level |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0220 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Dampproofing of Foundation Wall below Ground Level
Keywords: Dampproofing, Foundation wall, Finished Ground Level
Building Code Reference(s): 9.13.2.1.(1 ), 9.13.2.5., 9.13.3.1.
Sentence 9.13.2.1.(1) requires that except as provided in Article 9.13.3.1., where the exterior
finished ground level is at a higher elevation than the ground level inside the foundation walls,
exterior surfaces of the foundation walls below ground level shall be dampproofed.
The intent is to prevent problems associated with moisture transfer from the ground towards the
interior side.
Questions:
1. Does a garage foundation wall adjoining the interior wall of a crawl space or basement require
dampproofing?
2. Is a garage foundation wall adjoining the interior wall of a crawl space or basement,
considered an interior or exterior foundation wall?
Interpretation:
1. No, with some exceptions.
Assuming the garage is enclosed, it is effectively interior space protected from direct water
ingress. Therefore, the foundation walls adjoining a crawl space or basement would not be
considered to have exterior surfaces requiring dampproofing. However, best practices should
be considered. If the basement or crawlspace floor is lower than the garage floor, it is
recommended to provide dampproofing to prevent moisture in the soil from entering the
basement or crawl space. If hydrostatic pressures exist, waterproofing is required in accordance
with Article 9.13.3.1. Refer also to Article 9.13.2.5 for moisture protection requirements for
interior finishes.
2. Interior foundation wall.
For the purposes of Sentence 9.13.2.1.(1 ), a garage foundation wall adjoining the interior wall of
a crawl space or basement, is considered an interior foundation wall. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0221 |
Emergency Roof Overflows (Scuppers) |
17/01/2023 |
File No: 18-0221
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
January 17, 2023
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Emergency Roof Overflows (Scuppers)
Emergency Roof Overflows, Scuppers, Roof Drains
2.4.10.4.(2)(c), 2.4.10.4.(4), 4.1.6.4.(4), 5.6.1.1.(1),
9.26.1.2.(1)
When are emergency roof overflows (scuppers) required to be installed?
Interpretation:
Emergency roof overflows are required to be installed when the design of the roof or deck includes a
parapet with a height more than 150 mm, or where the parapet exceeds the height of the wall flashing.
They are also required where flow control roof drains are utilized in conformance with Clause
2.4.10.4.(2)(c).
Consideration must also be given to installing emergency roof overflows where openings in the roof
and/ or adjoining walls (skylights, ventilation terminals, door thresholds etc.) may allow water to enter
a building should the roof drain(s) become blocked (general design requirements contained in
9.26.1.2.(1) and 5.6.1.1.(1)).
Structural design to resist rain loads and buildup of rainwater on a roof or deck must be considered. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0222 |
Glazed Wall Acting as a Guard |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0222
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
December 13, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Glazed wall acting as a guard
window, glazing, pane, guard
3.3.1 .18.(1 ), 3.4.6.6.(6)(b); 4.1.5.14.; 9.8.8.1.(6)(b); 9.8.8.1.(7)
9.8.8.1.(8)(b); 9.8.8.7.
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
December 13, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Glazed wall acting as a guard
window, glazing, pane, guard
3.3.1 .18.(1 ), 3.4.6.6.(6)(b); 4.1.5.14.; 9.8.8.1.(6)(b); 9.8.8.1.(7)
9.8.8.1.(8)(b); 9.8.8.7.
If a window is required to act as a guard where the exterior grade is lower than the floor
level, must both the inner pane and outer pane of the window be designed to resist guard
loading?
Interpretation:
No.
Only the inner pane needs to be designed to resist guard loading since it is the only
structural member that is resisting the guard load when applied from the inside.
It should be noted that wind loading may trigger a requirement for tempered or laminated
glass on the outer pane as well. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0223 |
Height of Handrails |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0223 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Height of handrails
Keywords: Handrail height
Building Code Reference(s): 3.4.6.5.(7); 9.8.7.4.
Question:
Is it acceptable to have a handrail installed with variable heights along the length of stair
flights, ramp or landings?
Interpretation:
Yes, with caution.
The BCBC 2018 provides a range of handrail installation heights from 865mm to 1070mm.
There is no requirement that this height be uniform along the length of the stair flight,
landing or ramp.
However, the handrail must provide a steady support for persons using it and a change in
height along the flight of stairs, ramp or landing may cause a loss of balance. It is highly
recommended that the height of the handrail be consistent throughout the length of each
flight of stairs, ramps and landings.
In some locations, such as at the change of stair direction, it may be better to slope the
handrail between two successive flights instead of creating a vertical drop in the handrail,
as this rapid change in height may be more destabilizing or break the grip of the user.
This principle was accepted by BC Appeal Board Ruling #1667.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0225 |
Thermal Insulation at the Edge of Slab |
21/02/2023 |
File No: 18-0225
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
February 21, 2023
BC Building Code 2018
Thermal insulation at the edge of slab
Thermal break, thermal bridging, insultation, slab edge,
energy, effective R value.
9.36.2.8.(4)(b)(i)
When using insulation on the interior of the foundation wall or underside of a floor slab, the code
allows a reduction of 50% of the required thermal resistance for the space between the slab edge
and the foundation wall.
In this case, can the rigid insulation at the slab edge be beveled so that the bottom of the slab has
the full thickness of insulation and the top of the slab can be reached the foundation wall? This
method will use the effective A-value to calculate the thermal resistance of the foundation wall as a
whole.
Interpretation:
No.
Beveling the rigid insulation will create a thermal bridge at the top of the slab. This will negate any
thermal benefit of providing the full thickness of insulation at the bottom of the slab.
Whilst using the effective thermal resistance can be useful for determining the performance of an
assembly with respect to thermal transmittance, efforts must still be taken to thermally break
conditioned space from non-conditioned space. For example doors and windows are considered a
bridge, but these are necessary for the proper functioning of a building and the construction of these
aspects must be carefully detailed to minimize the transfer of heat energy.
Beveling the insulation at the slab edge will connect the top of slab to the foundation wall which will
allow the free passage of heat and essentially bring the effective R value of the assembly to O (zero).
Diagrams A and B below show the appropriate insulation between the edge of slab and the foundation
wall. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0226 |
Braced Wall Panel at Porch with 2 Open Sides |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0226 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: December 13, 2022
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Braced Wall Panel at Porch with 2 Open Sides
Keywords: braced, wall, panel, porch
Building Code Reference(s): 9.23.13.5.(3)
Question:
Where a covered porch is open on 2 sides and each open side is aligned with exterior walls
containing braced wall panels, does the porch have to meet the requirements of Sentences
9.23.13.5.(1) & (3)?
Interpretation:
No
Sentence 9.23.13.5.(3) waives the requirement for braced wall panels along the open side of small
porches where the entire porch is projected beyond the exterior wall that contains a braced wall
panel. Refer to BCIC Interpretation 18-0070.
A porch that is created with cantilevered roof trusses with 2 open sides where both open sides are
in the same plane as the exterior walls containing braced wall panels need not comply with the
requirements of Sentences 9.23.13.5.(1) & (3).
Note that, due to the cantilever, the roof trusses must be designed
to Part 4 using Part 9 loading.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0227 |
Fire Blocking at junction of Floor and Vertical Fire Separation |
13/12/2022 |
File No: 18-0227
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
December 13, 2022
BC Building Code 2018
Fire Blocking at junction of Floor and Vertical Fire
Separation
Fire Blocking, Fire Separation, Double Row Stud Wall
3.1.11 .2.(1 ), 3.1.11.7., 9.10.16.2.(1), 9.10.16.3.
When 15.9mm thick floor sheathing is not interrupted across the air gap at a double row of studs at
a demising fire separation wall; is additional sheet metal fire blocking still required at the floor
sheathing location?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 3.1 .11 .2.(1) requires fire blocking conforming to Article 3.1.11 .7 at the floor level, as well as
other locations such as at the ceiling level. The sheet metal fire blocking would be redundant at the
floor level, however fire blocking is also required at the ceiling level, and so that the maximum
horizontal dimension is not more than 20m and the maximum vertical dimension is not more than 3m.
It is interpreted that 12.5mm plywood, waferboard or OSB are acceptable as fire blocking by
reference to Article 3.1.11.7, particularly Clause 3.1.11 .7. (S)(b).
Similarly, for Part 9 buildings, Sentence 9.10.16.2.(1) requires fire blocking at the floor level, as well
as other locations such as at the ceiling level, and so that the maximum horizontal dimension is not
more than 20m and the maximum vertical dimension is not more than 3m.
Sentence 9.10.16.3.(1) and Clause 9.10.16.3.(2)(c) permit the use of 12.5mm plywood, waferboard or
OSB, as fire blocking.
It should be noted that for residential buildings most acoustical engineers recommend against running
the plywood floor sheathing through a suite demising wall due to poor acoustical performance.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0228 |
Parcel Lockers in Residential Lobbies |
17/01/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0228 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: January 17, 2023
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Parcel Lockers in Residential Lobbies
Keywords: Parcel, storage, lockers, mail, residential, lobbies
Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.4.3.(2)
Question:
In a multi-family residential building, is it permitted to have a parcel storage lockers, Canada Post
mailboxes and Canada Post parcel boxes open to a residential entry lobby (i.e. no fire separation
between such facilities and the lobby) when the lobby is not used as an exit?
Interpretation:
Yes
Sentence 3.3.4.3.(2) requires a fire separation with a 1 hour fire-resistance rating between a storage
room that is provided for use of tenants in a residential occupancy.
Parcel storage lockers, Canada Post mailboxes and Canada Post parcel boxes are not considered
to be "storage rooms" for the purposes of Sentence 3.3.4.3.(2) for the following reasons:
1. The parcel storage lockers and mailboxes are not for the tenant's personal use, like storage
lockers in a parkade.
2. The tenants themselves do not place any contents in these lockers, other than possibly a
returned parcel.
3. The parcel storage lockers and mailboxes are used for temporary placement of parcels, so
there is no permanent storage within these facilities.
4. To improve security of the parcels, the current trend is to place the parcels in secured
noncombustible parcel lockers. Various security measures are provided so the parcels are
only available to the intended recipient. This method of storage is highly recommended not
only for parcel security but also for fire safety.
Refer to SCAB Decision #1411 r which states that Subsection 3.3.4. is limited to floor areas or parts
thereof which contain residential occupancies. Refer to BCIC Interpretation 18-0161 for parcel
rooms and parcel storage lockers in exit lobbies.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0229 |
Bottle Traps |
17/01/2023 |
File No: 18-0229
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
January 17, 2023
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Bottle Traps
Bottle Traps, P-Traps
2.2.3.1.(1 ), 2.2.3. 1.(1 )(b)
Question:
Are bottle traps permitted to be used in a drain, waste and vent (DWV) system?
Interpretation:
No,
Bottle traps have an interior baffle which creates the trap seal and, should it fail, would not meet the
requirement of Clause 2.2.3.1 .(1 )(b) which requires the failure of the seal walls to cause exterior
leakage. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0230 |
Sliding Doors |
21/02/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0230 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: February 21, 2023
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Sliding doors
Keywords: Door swing, sliding door, breakaway
Building Code Reference(s): 3.3.1.11.(1 ).; 3.3.1.11.(2); 3.3.1.12.
Question:
An office suite contains multiple individual enclosed offices. Each enclosed office has a sliding door
providing access between the office and the common space.
Does the sliding door require a breakaway function to enable the sliding door to open and swing on
a vertical axis?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 3.3.1.11.(1) only requires a door that opens into a corridor or other facility providing access
to exit from a suite or room not located within a suite to swing on a vertical axis.
Sliding doors for individual offices within a suite do not need to have a breakaway function to enable
the door to open and swing on vertical axis unless the individual office has an occupant load of more
than 60 or is used or intended for a high-hazard industrial occupancy as per Sentence 3.3.1.11.(2).
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0232 |
Fire Separation Between a Horizontal Service Space and the Floor Area Below |
17/01/2023 |
File No: 18-0232 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
Interpretation Date: January 17, 2023
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Fire Separation Between a Horizontal Service Space
and the Floor Area Below
Keywords: Fire Separation, Membrane, Service Space
Building Code Reference(s): 3.1.7.1.(4), 3.1 .8.3.(1 ), 3.6.4.2.(2), 9.10.9.10.
Question:
Where a vertical fire separation does not extend through a horizontal service space
because a fire separation is provided between the horizontal space and the floor area
below, is the fire separation required to be provided by only the ceiling assembly and not
the entire floor/ceiling assembly in:
1. A building regulated by Division B Part 3?
2. A buildino regulated by Division B Part 9?
1. Yes.
Sentence 3.1.8.3.(1) requires that, where a horizontal service space or other concealed
space is located above a required vertical fire separation, the horizontal space shall be
divided at the fire separation by an equivalent vertical fire separation, except as permitted by
Sentence 3.6.4.2.(2).
Sentence 3.6.4.2.(2) permits the horizontal space to be constructed without the vertical fire
separation, provided there is a fire separation between the horizontal space and the floor
area below, which has a fire-resistance rating equivalent to that required for the vertical fire
separation except that a 30 min. fire-resistance rating is permitted if the required fireresistance
rating of the vertical fire separation is not more than 45 min.
The vertical fire separation would be intended to maintain the required separation between
fire compartments below the horizontal space. Where an equivalent vertical fire separation is
not extended through the horizontal space, the required separation between compartments
needs to be maintained at the interlace between the horizontal space and the floor area.
This fire separation must be based on only the ceiling assembly. If it was based on the entire floor/ceiling assembly, the fire-resistance rating of the portion of the overall separation
between the horizontal space and the floor area below (i.e. the ceiling) could be less than
required.
Sentence 3.1.7.1.(4) permits ceiling membranes to be used as a fire separation with a fire
resistance rating on the basis of assemblies M1 and M2 in Table 9.10.3.1.B.
2. Yes.
Sentence 9.10.9.10.(1) requires that, where a horizontal service space or other concealed
space is located above a required vertical fire separation, the horizontal space shall be
divided at the fire separation by an equivalent vertical fire separation, except as permitted by
Sentence (2).
Sentence 9.10.9.10.(2) permits the horizontal space to be constructed without the vertical fire
separation, provided there is a fire separation between the horizontal space and the floor
area below, which has a fire-resistance rating equivalent to that required for the vertical fire
separation except that a 30 min. fire-resistance rating is permitted if the required fireresistance
rating of the vertical fire separation is not more than 45 min.
These are essentially the same requirements as described in question 1 for Part 3 buildings.
The same rationale is applicable to a Part 9 building.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0233 |
Clearance of Cladding above Finished Ground |
21/02/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0233 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: February 21, 2023
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Clearance of Cladding above Finished Ground
Keywords: clearance, cladding, ground
Building Code Reference(s): 9.15.4.6.(1 ), 9.27.2.4.(1)
Question:
Sentence 9.27.2.4.(1) requires a clearance of not less than 200 mm between finished ground
and cladding when the cladding is adversely affected by moisture.
If the cladding is not adversely affected by moisture, is 150 mm clearance required between
finished ground and cladding as indicated in Sentence 9.15.4.6.(1 )?
Interpretation:
No
Sentence 9.15.4.6.( 1) requires exterior foundation walls to extend not less than 150 mm
above finished ground level.
This Sentence does not govern the clearance between finished ground level and cladding
when the cladding is not adversely affected by moisture.
The building code is silent on the minimum clearance between finished ground level and
cladding when the cladding is not adversely affected by moisture.
Refer also to previous interpretation 98-0006 for reduced clearances when the exterior
finished ground is hard surface paving. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0236 |
Janitors' Room Fire Separation |
21/02/2023 |
File No: 18-0236
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question(s):
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
February 21 , 2023
BC Building Code 2018, Book I: General
Janitors' Room Fire Separation
Janitors' Room; Storage Limits; Ancillary Use;
Incidental Use; Fire Code
Division B, 3.3.1.21.(1)
Does a room containing cleaners and cleaning supplies to support cleaning services in a building require
a fire-separated room as per 3.3.1.21.(1) in all cases?
Interpretation:
Yes In most cases.
A janitor's room is typically a room used to facilitate cleaning services within a building. Customarily, this
room may include facilities such as mop sink or sink, and limited storage. The janitor's room is generally
seen to be ancillary to the major occupancy of the floor area, as it may readily be shown that it does not
form an integral part of the major use or occupancies of that building.
The requirements for the fire separation described in 3.3.1.21.(1) are triggered by the designation of a room
or space for the storage of janitorial supplies and does not establish a minimum quantity or specific hazard.
This is based on the potential of such space to be used for such storage and the anticipated risk resulting
from the accumulation of such materials. The specific permissible contents of such a room are not directly
regulated by the Building Code, as these may vary based on the specific day to operational needs of a given
building. Some degree of storage is typically permitted, where it is incidental to this use - meaning quantities
necessary to facilitate daily or regular use or operations.
The foregoing is to be differentiated from janitor's rooms that also contain appliances that support building
services. In such cases, these rooms are service rooms and the construction of these rooms should comply
with the appropriate requirements of the Building Code. In addition, the Fire Code provides specific guidance
on this in Article 2.4.1.1 . and its associated notes, which clear1y identifies that storage should not generally be provided in these cases.
Additional Storage Considerations
Large amounts of storage, to a degree where the quantities of such materials and amounts materially
change the character of the space, may also be of concern. The precise point at which this becomes a
storage room is not clearly identified, but once the quantity of stored materials is out of proportion to the
quantities required for regular use, it is appropriate that the provisions for the design and construction of a
storage room be applied.
Further to the above, limits on the storage within a room or space in a building may be influenced by other
regulations or referenced standards. In a sprinkler protected building, NFPA 13 (and its derivative standards)
assume certain amounts of storage within a given space. Where such amounts have, or are likely to be
exceeded, then the required sprinkler protection may need to be modified or the room classification
changed. Likewise, limits on storage are provided in the Fire Code, focusing on the presence of combustible
content and hazardous materials. Lastly, other restrictions may exist based on the specific building design,
and owners and designers should exercise some caution on assessing the amounts of storage present. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0237 |
Party Wall in a Detached Garage Serving Two Single Family Dwelling Units |
21/03/2023 |
File No: 18-0237
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code Reference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 2
March 21 , 2023
BC Building Code 2018
Party Wall in a Detached Garage Serving Two Single
Family Dwelling Units
Party Wall, Firewall, Dwelling Unit
9.10.9.16, 9.10.11.1, 9.10.11.2, 9.10.11.3
Where two single family dwelling units on separate properties share a detached garage
structure that has a party wall on the property line, is the party wall in the garage structure
required to be constructed as a firewall?
No.
The definition of "party wall" in the BCBC is:
Party wall means a wall jointly owned and jointly used by 2 parties under easement
agreement or by right in law, and erected at or upon a line separating 2 parcels of land
each of which is, or is capable of being, a separate real-estate entity.
Sentence 9.10.11 .1.(1) requires a party wall on a property line to be constructed as a
firewall, with exceptions as described in Article 9.10.11.2. Sentence 9.10.11 .3.(1) states
that where firewalls are used, the requirements in Part 3 shall apply. These requirements
include a 2 h fire separation and noncombustible construction, where a firewall separates
Group C (residential) major occupancies.
Clause 9.10.11.2.(1 )(a) allows a party wall on a property line of a building of residential
occupancy to be constructed as a 1 h fire separation instead of a firewall, if the party wall
separates two dwelling units where there is no dwelling unit above another dwelling unit.
Single family dwelling units are assumed to be non-stacked, so they will comply with this
provision to allow the units to be separated by a 1 h fire separation instead of a firewall.
If each side of the detached garage is considered as part of its associated dwelling unit, the
party wall in the garage could also be a 1 h fire separation instead of a firewall. Articles 9.10.11.1 and 9.10.11.2 do not state whether a detached garage is considered to be part of
a dwelling unit. However, each side of the detached garage structure is used only by its
associated dwelling unit, such that it can be considered as subsidiary to the dwelling unit
and therefore part of the dwelling unit. As a result, the party wall on the property line in the
garage structure is permitted to be a 1 h fire separation instead of a firewall. This
conclusion is also supported by BC Building Code Appeal Board #1693.
Note that walls between strata-titled units, or between air space parcels, are not party walls
as defined in the BCBC because the walls are not located between 2 parcels of land that
are each capable of being a separate real estate entity. This means that other BCBC
requirements apply to the fire separations between strata units or air space parcels. Refer
to BC Building Code Appeal Board #1318 for further information.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0239 |
Flashing |
21/02/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0239 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
Interpretation Date: February 21, 2023
Building Code Edition: BC Building Code 2018
Subject: Flashing
Keywords: Flashing, flashing tape, sheathing membrane
Building Code Reference(s): 9.27.3.8.(4)(a)
Question:
Can sheet metal flashing be applied directly to the wall sheathing and covered with flashing
tape, rather than providing an overlap of the building paper?
Interpretation:
No.
Sheet metal flashing cannot be applied on top ofthe membrane sheathing, without having
an overlap of the membrane sheathing over the flashing.
Overlapping installation of building paper with the flashing as illustrated in the Notes to
Part 9 Figure 9.27.3.8.(4) is required. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0240 |
Connection of a Radon Vent to Plumbing System Vent |
21/02/2023 |
File No: 18-0240
Interpretation Date:
Building Code Edition:
Subject:
Keywords:
Building Code R' eference(s):
Question:
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
February 21, 2023
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems
(BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Connection of a Radon Vent to Plumbing System Vent
Radon Vent, Venting System, DWV
Division A Part 1, 1.4.1.2.(1), 9.13.4., 5.4.1.1.(1)(e)
Can a radon vent pipe connect to a plumbing vent to reduce the number of roof penetrations in a
building?
Interpretation:
No.
The defined term of a venting system is as follows:
"Venting system means an assembly of pipes arid fittings that connects a drainage system with
outside air for circulation of air and protection of trap seals in a drainage system."
Since a radon vent does not connect to a drainage system (it connects to a sub-floor depressurization
system), it does not fit the above definition.
Further to the above, a fan may also be installed to aid the sub-floor depressurization system which
could result in the failure of the trap seals installed at fixtures, which could lead to either sewer gas or
radon entering the building. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0242 |
Mechanical Pressurization of Carbon Monoxide Vestibule |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0242 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-07-05
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Mechanical Pressurization of Carbon Monoxide Vestibule
Keywords:
Pressurization, vestibule, storage garage
Building Code Reference(s):
3.3.5.7.(4)(b)(ii), 3.2.6.2.(4), 3.2.6.3.(1), A-3.2.6.4.(1)(c), A-3.2.6.3.(1)-(2)(b)
Question:
1. If mechanical ventilation is provided to a vestibule that is required to limit the movement of carbon monoxide (CO) between a storage garage and other parts of a building, is the rate of mechanical pressurization based solely on Subclause 3.3.5.7.(4)(b)(ii)?
2. Are there any other types of vestibules that require a higher pressurization rate?
Interpretation:
1. Yes.
CO vestibules require mechanical pressurization at a rate of 14 m3/h for each square meter of vestibule surface area.
2. Yes.
For high buildings, Sentence 3.2.6.3.(1) requires that if a high building is connected to any
other building, measures be taken to limit movement of smoke from one building to the other.
Notes to Part 3 – A-3.2.6.3.(1) states that a mechanically pressurized vestibule between the connected buildings is one method to limit smoke movement between buildings.
As per A-3.2.6.3.(1) – (2)(b) states that the pressurization rate of this vestibule must maintain a pressure differential of 12 Pascals to the adjacent floor area when the vestibule doors are in a closed position. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0243 |
Stair Handrail Extension |
27/06/2023 |
AIBC, EGBC, BOABC
File No: 18-0243 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.
2023-07-04
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Stair Handrail Extension
Keywords:
Handrail
Building Code Reference(s):
Div. A, 1.4.1.1., Notes A-1.4.1.2.(1);
Div. B, 3.4.6.5.(9), (10), (11) & (12); Note A-3.4.6.5.(10)
Question:
1. Is a sloping handrail on an exit stairway required to extend past the bottom riser before transitioning to a 300 mm horizontal extension?
2. Is this horizontal extension required to be parallel to the direction of the stair?
Interpretation:
1. Yes.
Clause 3.4.6.5.(9)(b) requires that the handrail be continuously graspable throughout the length of the flight of stairs from the bottom of the bottom riser to the top of the top riser (see illustration below from the Notes to Part 3).
Sentence 3.4.6.5.(12) requires that at least one handrail at the side of a stairway shall extend
horizontally not less than 300 mm beyond the top and bottom of the stairway.
The handrail is required for secure and steady support of a person using the stairs. It should be
graspable throughout the length of a flight of stairs from the bottom of the bottom riser to the top of
the top riser.
As illustrated above in Figure A-1.4.1.2.(1)-A, the stair flight extends from the bottom stair landing to
the top stair landing. The bottom step of the stair is on the bottom stair landing (i.e. at the bottom of
the bottom riser). A person descending the stair has not reached the bottom of the stair until they
step on the bottom stair landing. The fact that the 2018 BCBC has increased the range of the
handrail heights between 865mm to 1070mm does not mean that the sloping handrail can terminate
before it reaches the end of the bottom step, which is located on the bottom stair landing.
The location of the transition from a sloping handrail to a horizontal extension is particularly
important for persons with visual impairments because the transition provides a warning to the
occupant of the stair termination at the bottom stair landing. If the transition occurs before reaching
the bottom stair landing, it gives a false impression that the descent of the stair flight is complete.
The sloping handrail extended one run past the last riser will result in the horizontal extension to be
at the same height as the sloping handrail which is the preferred design. Refer to Figure 3.8.3.5.(1)-
C below from the 2020 Building Accessibility Handbook:
Although the 2018 BCBC does not mandate a uniform height of a handrail throughout the entire stair
flight, it is good design practice to maintain such uniformity, including at the 300 mm handrail
extension.
A sudden change in the height of the handrail could interrupt the continuous graspability as required
by Sentence 3.4.6.5.(9) which would not meet the intent of the code.
It may be necessary to vary the handrail height when a stair turns 90o or 180o with a sloping
transition which is preferable to a vertical “gooseneck” because the sloping transition is continuously
graspable.
2. No, with conditions.
Note A-3.4.6.5.(10) explains that blind or visually-impaired persons rely on handrails to guide them
on stairways. The horizontal extension of the handrail is helpful to persons with physical disabilities
to steady themselves before using the stairs. The extension also provides an indication of the end
of the stair flight. It is the intent of the code to have the 300 mm horizontal extension of the handrails
to follow the direction of the exit pathway at the top and bottom of the stair.
Sentence 3.4.6.5.(11) requires that handrails be terminated in a manner that will not obstruct
pedestrian travel or create a hazard. Note A-3.4.6.5.(10) states that handrails should return to the
wall, floor, or post, so as not to constitute a hazard to blind or visually-impaired persons.
If the exit pathway at the top or bottom of a stair is parallel to the stair flight, then the preferred
direction of the handrail extension is parallel to the stair flight provided it does not obstruct
pedestrian travel or create a hazard.
However, if the 300 mm handrail extension obstructs pedestrian travel or creates a hazard, it is
acceptable to turn the handrail extension 90 degrees.
If the direction of the exit pathway at the top or bottom of a stair flight turns at an angle from the
direction of the stair flight, then the 300 mm handrail extension can also turn to match the direction
of the exit pathway. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0245 |
Braced Wall Panels for Covered Deck |
23/05/2023 |
File No: 18-0245 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.
2023-06-23
Interpretation Date:
May 23, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Braced wall panels for covered deck
Keywords:
Braced wall panel, covered deck, egress route
Building Code Reference(s):
9.23.13.5.(1) & (3)
Question:
1. If a roof deck on the 2nd floor on a single dwelling unit has a roof covering that is 4m wide (parallel to the exterior wall of the house) and 4m deep (perpendicular to the exterior wall of the house) and is open on 3 sides, are braced wall panels required for the outside edge of the roof covering?
2. If the roof deck forms part of a means of egress from the 2nd floor to the ground level via an exterior egress stair, does this affect the requirement for wall bracing of the roof covering?
Interpretation:
1. Yes (if the structural design of the dwelling unit is based on the prescriptive requirements of Part 9).
Sentence 9.23.13.5.(1) requires braced wall panels for covered roofs that are open on 3 sides, except as permitted by Sentence 9.23.13.5.(3).
Sentence 9.10.23.5.(3) waives the requirements for braced wall panels at the outside edge of a roof covering when the roof covering projects less than 3.5m from the face of the exterior wall.
Since this roof covering projects 4m from the face of the exterior wall, braced wall panels are required at the outside of the roof covering.
If braced wall panels are not provided, the roof assembly would have to be designed to Part 4 by a registered professional.
Refer also to Interpretations 18-0070 and 18-0226.
2. No.
The requirement for braced wall panels is solely determined by structural requirements per
Article 9.23.13.5. The use of the roof deck as a means of egress has no effect on the
requirement for braced wall panels.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0246 |
Mud and Tape of Fire-rated Assemblies |
16/01/2024 |
File No: 18-0246 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-02-12
Interpretation Date:
January 16, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Mud and Tape of Fire-rated Assemblies
Keywords:
Fire rating, drywall, mud and tape
Building Code Reference(s):
3.1.7.1.; Section D-2
Question:
Does Appendix D require fire-rated drywall assemblies to be provided with mud and tape?
Interpretation:
No.
Appendix D does not clarify whether mud and tape are required.
Other good design practices may provide guidance whether the designer should implement mud and tape to fire-rated assemblies, such as ESR-1338 subsidiary to International Code Council:
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0247 |
Continuity of Vertical Fire Separations in Row Housing |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0247 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.
2023-07-05
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Continuity of Vertical Fire Separations in Row Housing
Keywords:
Horizontal service space; Vertical fire separation
Building Code Reference(s):
3.1.8.3.(1), 3.6.4.2.(2)
Question:
1. In a Part 3 multi-storey row housing with open stairs between floor levels within units, can the vertical fire separations terminate at the underside of a floor assembly that has the same fire-resistance rating as the vertical fire separation?
2. Where a membrane ceiling forms part of a horizontal fire separation in a townhouse, can a vertical fire separation terminate at the membrane ceiling?
Interpretation:
1. No.
Wood-frame floor assemblies in residential buildings are typically horizontal service spaces because they contain services such as wiring, piping and ducts. Sentence 3.1.8.3.(1) requires a horizontal service space above a vertical fire separation to be divided at the vertical separation by an equivalent fire separation.
There is an exception as permitted by Sentence 3.6.4.2.(2). This Sentence allows the vertical fire separation to terminate at the underside of the horizontal service space if the construction between the horizontal space and the area below has the same fire-resistance rating as the vertical fire separation, except that the horizontal separation can have a 30 min fire-resistance rating if the fire-resistance rating of the vertical separation is no more than 45 min.
In row housing, the only vertical fire separations on most floor levels are the demising walls
between suites. If a demising wall terminates on the underside of a floor assembly, the
horizontal service space in the floor assembly could potentially extend from one suite into
another. However, floor assemblies in multi-storey residential suites require a fireresistance
rating but in most cases they are not required to be fire separations and do not
function as fire separations because they are not continuous, due to the open stairs and
possibly other openings between floor levels. Because the horizontal assemblies are not
fire separations, the vertical fire separations are not permitted to terminate at them.
Note that acceptable fire blocking can provide the continuity of the required vertical fire
separations. Refer to Interpretation 18-0055.
2. Yes, if the membrane ceiling is a fire separation with the required fire-resistance rating.
Sentence 3.6.4.2.(2) as referenced in the response to Question 1 allows the vertical fire
separation to terminate on the underside of a horizontal fire separation. This could be a
membrane ceiling or a horizontal shaft with the required fire-resistance rating. The
horizontal assembly must be a fire separation, not just an assembly with a fire-resistance
rating. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0249 |
Inverted Roof Slope |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0249 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-07-05
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Inverted Roof Slope
Keywords:
Roofing, Roof Slope
Building Code Reference(s):
9.26.1.1.; Table 9.26.2.1.-B; 9.26.3.1.; Table 9.26.3.1.
Question:
1. In a Part 9 building, is the roof slope of an inverted roof determined by the slope of the roofing membrane?
2. Should the rigid insulation of the inverted roof follow the slope of the roofing membrane?
Interpretation:
1. Yes
As clarified in Article 9.26.1.1. the roofing shall mean the primary covering for roof – otherwise known as a membrane. Table 9.26.2.1.-B lists the variety of common roofing membranes. Table 9.26.3.1. provides minimum and maximum slopes to drains required for various types of roofing materials.
2. This is not regulated by the Building Code but is good practice.
Rigid insulation installed over the roofing membrane should be installed over the drain mat and follow the roofing membrane slopes.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0250 |
Fill under Small Garage Concrete Slab |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0250 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-08-19
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Fill under Small Garage Concrete Slab
Keywords:
Fill, small, garage, bearing walls
Building Code Reference(s):
9.15.3.2.(1), 9.16.1.2.(1), 9.35.3.1.(2),
Question:
For a detached single storey garage which is less than 55 m². in area, is non-compacted fill allowed under the 100 mm concrete slab if the slab is used to support the bearing walls for the roof structure as permitted by Sentence 9.35.3.1.(2)?
Interpretation:
Yes.
Sentence 9.15.3.2.(1) requires “footings” to rest on undisturbed soil, rock or compacted granular fill.
Sentence 9.35.3.1.(2) provides an exception to the foundation design requirements of Subsections 9.12. (excavation) and 9.15. (footing & foundations) for garages that meet the following criteria:
• Area of the garage is < 55 m². in area,
• Height of the garage is not more than 1 storey, and
• The garage does not contain masonry or masonry veneer construction.
Such small garages are permitted to be supported on mud sills or 100 mm concrete slabs and are exempt from the requirements of Sentence 9.15.3.2.(1) which requires “footings” to rest on undisturbed soil, rock or compacted granular fill. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0251 |
Firestopping for Rated Assemblies that are not Fire Separations |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0251 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.
2024-07-09
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book I: General
Subject:
Firestopping for Rated Assemblies that are not Fire Separations
Keywords:
Firestopping; Fire Separations; Rated Assemblies
Building Code Reference(s):
Division B, 9.10.5.1.; 9.10.8.1.; 9.10.15.5.
Question(s):
1.
Does a loadbearing wall, required to have a fire-resistance rating as per Sentence 9.10.8.3.(1), require firestopping tested to CAN/ULC-S115 where combustible DWV piping penetrates the membrane of the wall assembly?
2.
Does a non-loadbearing wall, required to have a fire-resistance rating as per Article 9.10.15.5,, require firestopping tested to CAN/ULC-S115 where combustible DWV pipe penetrates the wall assembly?
3.
If electrical service panels and media panels are installed in either wall described in question 1 or 2, would they be required to conform to have a listed firestop system?
4.
Do similar penetrations into the membrane forming part of a wall assembly required only to provide a fire-resistance in Part 3 construction also require a firestop system?
1.
Yes.
In Part 9 construction, the requirements of Articles 9.10.8.1. and 9.10.8.3. describe the need for certain loadbearing walls to have a fire-resistance rating but does not include a requirement for these to be fire separations. Sentence 9.10.9.7.(2) which includes the provisions for firestopping penetrations of a membrane that forms part of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating by combustible DWV piping.
This concern arises where the combustible DWV piping could be damaged or consumed in a fire, which could lead to the creation of an opening in the membrane of an assembly that would compromise the ability of that assembly to achieve the required fire-resistance rating. Consequently, firestopping tested to CAN/ULC-S115 to achieve the ‘F’ rating corresponding to the loadbearing wall in which this is installed is required by Sentence 9.10.9.7.(2).
2.
Yes.
The requirements of Sentences 9.10.9.7.(2) and (3) make no distinction between load-bearing and non-load conditions in wall assemblies that required a fire-resistance rating. If the assembly is required to have a fire-resistance rating because of spatial separation as per Article 9.10.15.5., then firestopping tested to CAN/ULC-S115 is required. Any applicable loadbearing conditions are simply factored into the testing that determines the capacity of the assembly to achieve a given fire-resistance.
3.
Yes.
The root provisions of Sentence 9.10.5.1.(1) are generally intended to require penetrations through a wall or ceiling membrane forming part of an assembly (i.e. not a membrane fire-resistance per Appendix D 2.3.12.) to have been specifically tested for such use unless they fully comply with the identified exceptions of Sentences 9.10.5.1.(2) to (4). This typically includes the use of assemblies listed by recognized testing agencies are one means by which compliance with such testing can be readily demonstrated to the local authority having jurisdiction.
Electrical outlet boxes referenced by 9.10.5.1.(2) are permitted to penetrate the membrane of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating if tightly fitted. However, these are listed and tested equipment under the provision of the Canadian Electrical Code and limited in size.
Electrical service panels and media panels typically do not conform to testing that is consistent with those of outlet boxes, and these are also considerably larger than typical outlet boxes. This could place assemblies required to achieve a fire-resistance rating at a greatly increased risk of failure due to direct exposure to fire if the box fails, or as a consequence of greater heat transfer due to the sizable discontinuity of the protective membrane.
4.
Yes – in most cases.
The provisions of Part 3 are conceptually similar, although there are specific differences in language, generally as it pertains to exceptions. Broadly speaking, Article 3.1.9.1. addresses the continuity of fire separations or the membrane of assemblies providing a fire-resistance rating, and generally requires firestopping tested to CAN/ULC-S115 to maintain continuity.
3.1.9.1. Fire Stops
(1)
Except as provided in Sentences (2) to (5) and Article 3.1.9.4., penetrations of a fire separation or a membrane forming part of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating shall be […]
Similarly, Article 3.1.9.3. and 3.1.9.4 provides a set of requirements for electrical outlet boxes, but differing in that there is an exception for firestopping only for noncombustible outlet boxes meeting certain dimensional requirements. Combustible outlet boxes must be firestopped.
Article 3.1.9.5. addresses combustible DWV piping penetrations, in both fire separations and the membrane of assemblies with a fire-resistance rating, but here the language is slightly different leading to slightly different outcomes, but generally requiring firestopping to be testing to CAN/ULC-S115, but also the more stringent requirement of testing with a 50 Pa pressure differential.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0252 |
Reduction in Foundation Wall Thickness |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0252 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-07-08
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Reduction in foundation wall thickness
Keywords:
Reduction, foundation wall, concrete slab
Building Code Reference(s):
9.15.4.7.
Question:
Can a concrete foundation wall be reduced in thickness to accommodate the concrete slab on grade as illustrated below?
Interpretation:
Yes
Sentence 9.15.4.7.(1) permits the top of a concrete wall to be reduced in thickness to a minimum of 90mm wide and a maximum of 350 mm high to accommodate the installation of floor joists.
Although it is not specifically stated in Article 9.15.4.7., it is reasonable to apply the same logic for the top of concrete foundation wall to accommodate the installation of a concrete slab on grade as illustrated above. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0253 |
Fire Separation of a Service Room in a House with a Secondary Suite |
17/10/2023 |
File No: 18-0253 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.
2023-11-13
Interpretation Date:
October 17, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Fire Separation of a Service Room in a House with a Secondary Suite
Keywords:
Service Room, Secondary Suite, Fuel-Fired Appliance
Building Code Reference(s):
9.10.9.14.(4), 9.10.10.3., 9.10.10.4., 9.10.19.5.(2)
Question:
In a house with a secondary suite, is a fire separation required for a service room where the service room serves both suites?
The answer depends on the type of service room, the size of the house, the type of smoke alarms, and whether the house is sprinklered.
Sentence 9.10.10.3.(1) requires a 1 h fire separation for service rooms but Sentence 9.10.10.3.(2) waives this requirement for rooms that contain a limited quantity of service equipment and where the equipment does not constitute a fire hazard. This exception would apply to most service rooms in houses except rooms that contain fuel-fired equipment. There are separate requirements for fire separations of service rooms containing incinerators, but it is assumed that an incinerator will not be located in a house.
Sentence 9.10.10.4.(1) requires a 1 h fire separation for a service room containing fuel-fired appliances, with exceptions as stated in Sentence 9.10.10.4.(2). Unless otherwise required by the appliance installation standards referenced in the BCBC, Sentence (2) waives the requirement for the fire separation if the fuel-fired appliance serves not more than one room or suite, or a house with a building area of not more than 400 m2 and a building height of not more than 2 storeys. If the house does not meet these exceptions, the service room requires a fire separation with a fire-resistance rating not less than that required for the fire separation between the dwelling units or common spaces. Sentence 9.10.9.14.(4) requires a fire separation with a fire-resistance rating of 0 h to 45 min depending on whether the house is sprinklered or on 8888he type of smoke alarms.
___________________________________
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
The requirements for the fire separation of a service room in a house with a secondary suite are summarized below.
Where a service room contains a limited quantity of service equipment and the service equipment does not constitute a fire hazard:
•
The service room does not require a fire separation.
Where a service room contains fuel-fired appliances:
•
A fire separation is not required if the appliances serve only one room.
•
A fire separation is not required if the appliances serve only either the main dwelling or the secondary suite.
•
A fire separation is not required if the appliances serve a house with a secondary suite with the building area of 400 m2 or less and the building height of 2 storeys or less.
•
If the fuel-fired appliances serve a house with a secondary suite and the building area exceeding 400 m2 or with a building height of more than 2 storeys:
-
A fire separation with a minimum 0 h fire-resistance rating is required if the house is sprinklered.
-
A fire separation with a minimum of 15 min fire-resistance rating is required if the house is not sprinklered but all smoke alarms in the house are photo-electric and interconnected as described in Clause 9.10.19.5.(2)(a), i.e., so that actuation of any one smoke alarm will cause all smoke alarms in the house to sound.
-
A fire separation with a minimum of 30 min fire-resistance rating is required if the house is not sprinklered but an additional photo-electric smoke alarm is installed in each suite as described in Clause 9.10.19.5.(2)(b), i.e., at least one additional smoke alarm is installed in each suite, interconnected so that actuation will also cause the additional smoke alarm(s) in the other suite to sound.
-
A fire separation with a minimum 45 min fire-resistance rating is required if the house is not sprinklered, and smoke alarms are not installed and interconnected as described above.
Also, note that appliance installation standards are referenced in Sentences 6.2.1.5.(1), 9.33.5.2.(1) and 9.33.5.3.(1) of the BCBC. These standards may contain additional requirements for fire separation of service rooms.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0254 |
Protection of Underground Non-Metallic Pipes |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0254 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-04-03
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Protection of Underground Non-Metallic Pipes
Keywords:
Non-Metallic pipes, Underground, DWV
Building Code Reference(s):
2.3.5.2.(1), Note A-2.3.5.2.(1)
Question:
Does Sentence 2.3.5.2.(1) apply to non-metallic pipes other than vitrified clay (ABS DWV for example)?
Interpretation:
No.
This Sentence and the referenced Note to this Sentence are specific to vitrified clay pipe.
It is worth noting that this Sentence does not appear in the 2015 National Plumbing Code (NPC) on which the 2018 BCPC is based. However, there is an additional requirement in the 2015 NPC for protection of all underground pipes, regardless of material, which requires at least a 75 mm layer of concrete 200 mm wider than the pipe (Clause 2.3.5.1.(1)(b) in the 2015 NPC). This Clause also appears in the 2020 NPC and should then be included in the next edition of the BCPC. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0255 |
Hot Water Tank Relief Valve Pipe Material |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0255 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-04-03
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Hot Water Tank Relief Valve Pipe Material
Keywords:
Relief Valve, Hot Water Tank, PVC
Building Code Reference(s):
Division A 1.4.1.2.(1), 2.2.5.7.(4), 2.6.1.7.
Question:
Can PVC pipe be used for a relief valve required under Article 2.6.1.7.?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 2.2.5.7.(4) states that PVC water pipe and fittings shall not be used in a hot water system. A water system is defined as “… a private water supply system, a water service pipe, a water distribution system or parts thereof.” |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0256 |
Combustible Outlet Boxes in Fire-rated Wall |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0256 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-07-08
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Combustible Outlet Boxes in Fire-rated Wall
Keywords:
Electrical Outlet Boxes, Fire-Resistance Rated Assembly
Building Code Reference(s):
9.10.5.1.(2); 9.10.5.1.(3); 9.10.9.1.(1)(a); 9.10.9.6.(8)
Question:
In Part 9 buildings, is there a limit of the number of combustible electrical boxes in an assembly with a fire-resistance rating?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 9.10.5.1.(2) permits penetration of electrical outlet boxes in assemblies required to have a fire-resistance rating.
Sentence 9.10.5.1.(3) requires offsetting these boxes if they occur on both sides of the wall. In both Sentences (2) & (3) there is no provision of any limitation on the number of these boxes.
Sentence 9.10.9.6.(8) permits penetration of electrical outlet boxes in assemblies of fire separations with fire-resistance rating for the combustible electrical boxes provided that the opening does not exceed 160 cm2, however there is no limitation as to the number of boxes.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0257 |
Measurement of 1.8 m Vestibule |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0257 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-08-19
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Measurement of 1.8 m vestibule
Keywords:
Vestibule in Storage Garage
Building Code Reference(s):
3.3.5.7.(4)
Question:
Is the 1.8 m distance of vestibule in storage garage measured between the doors?
Interpretation:
Yes.
As per Clause 3.3.5.7.(4)(a) the length of a vestibule between the storage garage and the rest of the building is required to be not less than 1.8 m long. This distance is required to prevent migration of carbon monoxide from the storage garage to the remainder of the building.
The orientation of the vestibule perimeter walls, and the location of the doors at each end of the vestibule can vary. To minimize the movement of carbon monoxide from the storage garage to the remainder of the building, it is good practice to measure the distance in a straight line between the latching jambs of the two vestibule doors to assure that the first door will latch before the second door is opened. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0259 |
Supervision of Valves Controlling Water Supply in a Standpipe System |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0259 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.
2023-08-31
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Supervision of Valves Controlling Water Supply in a Standpipe System
Keywords:
Supervision, Standpipe
Building Code Reference(s):
3.2.4.9
Question:
Where a valve controls water supply to a standpipe system, but the valve is not part of the standpipe system, is the valve required to be electrically supervised?
Yes.
Where a fire alarm system is required to have an annunciator, Sentence 3.2.4.9.(2) requires that, except for hose valves, all valves controlling water supplies in a standpipe system shall have an electrically supervised switch for transmitting a trouble signal to the annunciator in the event of movement of the valve handle.
There may be valves that control water supply to the standpipe system but that would typically not be considered as part of the standpipe system, such as valves in an exterior water entry chamber. Sentence 3.2.5.9.(1) refers to NFPA 14 “Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems” for the design, construction, installation and testing of a standpipe system. NFPA 14 contains the following definition of a control valve:
It is clear from this definition that any valve controlling water flow to a water-based fire protection system, including a standpipe system, is considered to be a control valve regardless of the location of the valve.
Therefore, any valve that controls water supplies in a standpipe system, including a valve that may not obviously be part of the standpipe system such as at an exterior water entry chamber, is required to be electrically supervised.
This is consistent with Building Code Appeal Board Ruling 1618 which dealt with supervision of valves controlling the supply of water for sprinklers. Although there are some differences in the wording of the BCBC requirements for supervision of standpipe system valves and of sprinkler system valves, they have a similar intent.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0263 |
Panic Hardware |
27/06/2023 |
File No: 18-0263 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.
2023-08-19
Interpretation Date:
June 27, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Panic Hardware
Keywords:
Panic Hardware
Building Code Reference(s):
3.4.6.16.(2)
Question:
Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sentence 3.4.6.16.(2) refer to different door locations where a device is required that will release the latch and allow the door to swing wide open when a force of not more than 90 N is applied to the device in the direction of travel (eg. “panic hardware”). Clauses (b) and (c) are connected by ”and” at the end of Clause (b). Does this mean that panic hardware is required only at doors that satisfy all of the criteria of Clauses (a), (b) and (c)?
Interpretation:
No.
The Preface to the BCBC contains an explanation of the meaning of the words “and” and “or” between the Clauses and Subclauses of a Sentence. The appearance of the word “and” at the end of the second last Clause or Subclause means that all of the applicable Clauses of the Sentence, or the Subclauses of the Clause, are connected to each other with the word “and”. A similar linking between Clauses or Subclauses occurs if the word “or” is used. The Preface explanation also notes that a Clause or Subclause must always be read in conjunction with its introductory text at the beginning of the Sentence.
Sentence 3.4.6.16.(2) refers to 3 locations where doors with panic hardware are required, which are:
(a) every exit door from a floor area containing an assembly occupancy having an occupant load more than 100,
(b) every door leading to an exit lobby from an exit stair shaft, and every exterior door leading from an exit stair shaft in a building having and occupancy load more than 100, and
(c) every exit door from a floor area containing a high-hazard industrial occupancy.
These are different locations of doors. The introductory text at the beginning of the Sentence must be read in conjunction with the Clauses. The “and” between Clauses (b) and (c) means that the requirement of Sentence 3.4.6.16.(2) applies to each of the locations described in the Clauses, not that panic hardware is required only at doors that meet all of the criteria stated in the 3 Clauses. (It is unlikely that such a door would exist.)
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0264 |
Bracing to Resist Lateral Loads for Part 9 Buildings |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0264 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:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Bracing to Resist Lateral Loads for Part 9 Buildings
Keywords:
Conventional framing, seismic bracing
Building Code Reference(s):
9.23.1.1.(1) & (2), 9.23.13., 4.3.1.
Question:
For a Part 9 building that contains structural members in walls, floors or roof framing spaced more than 600 mm o.c.:
1.
Must such structural members be designed by a registered professional to support gravity loads in accordance with Subsection 4.3.1.?
2.
If the bracing to resist lateral loads consists of structural members with framing less than 600 mm oc, in a building where the structural members of roof or floor assemblies are spaced greater than 600 mm, does such bracing have to be designed by a registered professional in accordance with Subsection 4.3.1.?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes
Clause 9.23.1.1.(1)(1)(b) and Sentence 9.23.1.1.(2) requires that Part 9 buildings with structural members spaced more than 600 mm o.c. must have their framing and fastenings designed to Subsection 4.3.1. This requirement only applies to the structural components that are not within the scope of Part 9.
Subclause 2.2.7.1.(1)(c)(1) of Division C requires that structural components that are not within the scope of Part 9 be designed by a registered professional.
2.
No (with conditions)
If the braced wall bands and braced wall panels to resist wind and seismic forces have structural members that are spaced less than 600 mm o.c., then the bracing itself is within the scope of Part 9 and can be designed to Subsection 9.23.13.
Note that if the building is in areas of extreme wind and seismic forces as described in Article 9.23.13.3., the bracing system cannot be designed to Part 9 and will require a registered professional. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0265 |
Use of Containers as a Building for Storage |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0265 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.
2023-09-01
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Use of Containers as a Building for Storage
Keywords:
Shipping containers, building, storage
Building Code Reference(s):
Division A, Subclause 1.1.1.1.(2)(f)(ii), Subsection 1.4.1.2.
Question:
1. Can a shipping container, or group of shipping containers, be used for temporary storage on private property without having to meet all the requirements of the building code?
2. Can a shipping container, or group of shipping containers, be used for permanent storage on private property without having to meet all the requirements of the building code?
Interpretation:
1. Yes (with permission of the authority having jurisdiction)
Subclause 1.1.1.1.(2)(f)(ii) waives the requirements of the building code to seasonal storage buildings if acceptable to the AHJ.
If there is a group of storage containers, the AHJ may require the owner to demonstrate that the group of containers does not constitute a safety hazard.
2. Yes (some provisions of the building code may not apply)
A shipping container that is used for permanent storage does meet the definition of “building” in Subsection 1.4.1.2. as indicated below:
“Building means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy”.
So, shipping containers that are used for permanent storage would have to meet the applicable requirements of the building code. The specific requirements should be reviewed with the authority having jurisdiction.
For an unheated permanent storage shipping container, some of the building code requirements may not apply.
The AHJ may require the owner to demonstrate compliance to the applicable portions of the building code, and to identify which portions of the building code are not applicable.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0266 |
Cantilevered Roof Trusses and their Impact on Supporting Structure |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0266 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.
2023-09-01
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Cantilevered Roof Trusses and their Impact on Supporting Structure
Keywords:
cantilevered, roof, trusses, supporting structure
Building Code Reference(s):
9.23.14.11.(1), A-9.23.14.11.(1), Table 9.23.4.2.-L.
Question:
1. For structures that are designed to Part 9, are there limits on the length the cantilevered portion of a roof truss when designing the supporting structure?
2. Do all trusses with cantilevers have to be designed to Part 4 using Part 9 loading?
Interpretation:
1. Yes.
Table 9.23.4.2.-L can be used for the design of built-up wood lintels supporting a roof and ceiling only.
Note 1 limits the maximum supported length of the roof truss to 4.9m.
Note 2 clarifies that the maximum supported length on lintels is based on ½ the span of the truss plus the length of the overhang beyond the lintel.
To utilize Table 9.23.4.2.-L for lintel designs, the maximum length of the truss cantilever for various truss spans are illustrated below:
Truss Span Maximum Allowable Truss Cantilever
6m 1.9m (6m / 2 + 1.9m = 4.9)
7m 1.4m (7m / 2 + 1.4m = 4.9)
8m 0.9m (8m / 2 + 0.9m = 4.9)
9m 0.4m (9m / 2 + 0.4m = 4.9)
If the truss spans and cantilevers exceed these values, the lintels would have to be designed to Part 4 using Part 9 loadings.
2. Yes.
9.23.14.11.(1) describes the conditions where roof trusses need not be designed to Part 4 but 9.23.14.11.(2) requires that joint connections used in trusses be designed in conformance with the requirements in Subsection 4.3.1.
This is further described in the Notes to Part 9 as follows:
A-9.23.14.11.(2) - Wood Roof Truss Connections.
Sentence 9.23.14.11.(2) requires that the connections used in wood roof trusses be designed in conformance with Subsection 4.3.1. and Sentence 2.2.1.2.(1) of Division C, which applies to all of Part 4, requires that the designer be a professional engineer or architect skilled in the work concerned. This has the effect of requiring that the trusses themselves be designed by professional engineers or architects. Although this is a departure from the usual practice in Part 9, it is appropriate, since wood roof trusses are complex structures which depend on a number of components (chord members, web members, cross-bracing, connectors) working together to function safely. This complexity precludes the standardization of truss design into tables comprehensive enough to satisfy the variety of roof designs required by the housing industry. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0267 |
Responsibility for Firestopping of Sprinkler Pipe Penetrations |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0267 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-09-01
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Responsibility for Firestopping of
Sprinkler Pipe Penetrations
Keywords:
Responsibility, firestopping, sprinkler pipe penetrations
Building Code Reference(s):
Division C – 2.2.7.3., Schedule B
Schedule B requires that the responsibility for continuity of fire separations rests with the following registered professionals:
• Architect – for Architectural components
• Mechanical Engineer – for HVAC components
• Plumbing Engineer – for plumbing components
• Electrical Engineer – for electrical components
Schedule B is silent with respect to the responsibility for continuity of fire separations for fire suppression components. Was this an inadvertent omission on Schedule B?
Interpretation:
Yes.
The BCIC Committee has recommended to the Building Safety Standards Branch to amend Schedule B to include continuity of fire separations in the Fire Suppression discipline.
Until such amendment has occurred, the Coordinating Registered Professional is responsible to ensure that a registered professional does take responsibility for continuity of the fire separations for fire suppression components. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0268 |
Rainscreen Capillary Break Venting |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0268 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-09-01
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Rainscreen capillary break venting
Keywords:
Cladding, rainscreen, capillary break venting
Building Code Reference(s):
9.27.2.2.(2)(d); 9.27.2.2.(3)
Question:
Does a rainscreen cavity need to be open near the top for venting and is an insect screen required there?
Interpretation:
Yes.
Sentence 9.27.2.2.(3) refers to the top of the drained and vented capillary rainscreen cavity and states that this space cannot be contiguous with concealed spaces in projected construction. The entire principle of rainscreen is that the space is open on two ends: at the bottom to allow draining of the residual moisture and access of the air and at the top allowing for a free flow of this air through the space.
The other principle of the construction is to restrict the access for the insects to all spaces that would attract their nesting – therefore the open vented spaces must be protected with insect screens at all access points as per 9.27.2.2.(2)(d). |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0269 |
Vessel Lavatory (Basin) Overflow and Drain |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0269 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-04-03
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Vessel Lavatory (Basin) Overflow and Drain
Keywords:
Lavatory, Basin, Overflow
Building Code Reference(s):
N/A
Question:
Where a vessel type lavatory (basin) sink is installed in a bathroom, is an overflow or a specific type of drain assembly required for the fixture outlet pipe?
Interpretation:
No.
There are no requirements in the BCPC specific to the type of drain assembly for a lavatory nor is an overflow required.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0270 |
Duct Openings in Ceilings of Secondary Suites |
19/07/2023 |
File No: 18-0270 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.
2024-04-03
Interpretation Date:
July 19, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Duct Openings in Ceilings of Secondary Suites
Keywords:
Duct Openings, Secondary Suites
Building Code Reference(s):
9.10.3.1, 9.10.5.1, 9.10.9.6, 9.10.13.13.,
Questions:
1.
Are duct openings permitted in the ceiling of a secondary suite, where the fire-resistance rating of the ceiling is based on Sentence 9.10.3.1.(2) or (3) and the duct serves only one fire compartment?
2.
If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, are fire dampers required at duct openings in ceilings of secondary suites when the duct serves only one fire compartment?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes.
Sentences 9.10.3.1.(2) and (3) provide descriptions of acceptable assemblies in a house where a secondary suite requires construction with a 15 min or 30 min fire-resistance rating. These assembly descriptions do not refer to tested assemblies, or to calculations of fire-resistance ratings as presented in Appendix D, or to assemblies described in Tables 9.10.3.1.-A or -B.
Sentence 9.10.5.1.(4) states:
“A membrane ceiling forming part of an assembly assigned a fire-resistance rating on the basis of Table 9.10.3.1.-B or Appendix D is permitted to be pierced by openings leading to ducts within the ceiling space provided the ducts, the amount of openings and their protection conform to the requirements of Appendix D.”
Since the fire-resistance rating of the secondary suite ceiling assembly in this case is based on Sentences 9.10.3.1.(2) or (3), and not Table 9.10.3.1.- B or Appendix D, Sentence 9.10.5.1.(4) is not applicable. However, the referenced requirements of Appendix D are only one method of protecting duct openings, and the BCBC has additional requirements relating to fire dampers. Sentences 9.10.9.6.(13) and (14) include requirements for fire dampers that penetrate a fire separation or a membrane forming part of an assembly required to have a fire-resistance rating.
2.
No, if the duct is noncombustible.
For a house with a secondary suite, Sentence 9.10.9.6.(14) waives the requirement for fire dampers at ducts penetrating fire separations, provided the ducts are noncombustible with all openings in the duct system serving only one fire compartment.
If the duct serves two fire compartments, then a fire damper may be required.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0271 |
Floor Drain Requirements for a Basement |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0271 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-10-06
Interpretation Date:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Floor Drain Requirements for a Basement
Keywords:
Floor Drain, Basement
Building Code Reference(s):
9.16.3.3.(1), 9.31.4.3.(1)
Question:
Where a single-family dwelling has a basement which includes a service room which is not the lowest part of the basement,
1.
can the required floor drain be located only in the service room or
2.
is a floor drain required in the room that is at a lower elevation (for example a media room)?
Interpretation:
j
1.
No.
2.
Yes.
Sentence 9.16.3.3.(1) states that “when floor drains are required (see Section 9.31.), the floor surface shall be sloped so that no water can accumulate.”
Sentence 9.31.4.3.(1) states that “where gravity drainage to a sewer, drainage ditch or dry well is possible, a floor drain shall be installed in a basement forming part of a dwelling unit.”
The above BCBC references would then require a floor drain in the lowest elevation of the basement in the dwelling unit if connection to a gravity drainage system is possible. If this is not done it would not satisfy the requirement of Sentence 9.16.3.3.(1) which requires the floor surface to be sloped to the floor drain to avoid water accumulation.
The connection of the floor drain to a drainage system would need to be in conformance with the requirements of the BC Plumbing Code and the BCBC. 7778
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0272 |
Fire Department Access to Cut-off Portions of a Building |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0272 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.
2023-10-06
Interpretation Date:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Fire Department Access to Cut-off Portions of a Building
Keywords:
Fire Department Access
Building Code Reference(s):
3.2.5.5.(1), 3.2.5.5.(2), 3.2.5.5.(4)
Question:
Where a cut-off portion of a building is required to be within 45 m of a Fire Department vehicle, can this distance be measured from any point on the vehicle access route?
Interpretation:
Yes.
Sentence 3.2.5.5.(1) requires an access route for Fire Department vehicles to be located so that the principal entrance is between 3 m and 15 m from the access route, measured horizontally from the face of the building.
Sentence 3.2.5.5.(2) states that where a building has a Fire Department connection, the access routes must be provided so that a pumper vehicle can be located adjacent to a hydrant, and a maximum travel path of 45 m is permitted from the vehicle to the building.
Sentence 3.2.5.5.(4) requires that, where a portion of a building is cut off from the remainder of the building so that there is no access to the remainder of the building, the access routes required by Sentence 3.2.5.5.(2) are required to be located so that the unobstructed path of travel from the vehicle to one entrance of each portion of the building is not more than 45 m.
Sentence 3.2.5.5.(4) refers to the access route, not to the specific location of the pumper vehicle, or the hydrant, or the principal response point. The maximum 45 m distance required by Sentence 3.2.5.5.(4) can be measured from any point on a code-conforming Fire Department vehicle access route.
This is consistent with Building Code Appeal Board Decision #1742 (although this subject was not the focus of that decision). |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0273 |
Wind Loads on Roofing Membranes |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0273 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.
2023-10-06
Interpretation Date:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Wind Loads on Roofing Membranes
Keywords:
Wind loads, roofing membrane, structural design
Building Code Reference(s):
2.2.4.3.(1)(e) of Div C, Schedules A & B
Question:
For a Part 3 building:
1.
Is the Coordinating Registered Professional responsible to ascertain that the appropriate registered professionals of record have been retained for the design and field review of the roof assembly, including the wind resistance of the roofing membrane?
2.
Is the Structural Registered Professional of Record responsible for determining the applicable wind loads on the roof assembly, and must the applicable wind loads be indicated on the structural drawings?
3.
Is the Architectural Registered Professional of Record responsible for assuring that the design and installation of the roofing membrane substantially complies with the requirements of Subsection 5.2.2.?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes.
Note 1 at the bottom of Page 1 of Schedule A states that “it is the responsibility of the Coordinating Registered Professional to ascertain which registered professionals of record are required” for the project.
2.
Yes.
Clause 2.2.4.3.(1)(e) of Division C requires the information on structural drawings to include “all effects and loads, other than dead loads, used for the design of the structural members and exterior cladding”.
Although the term “exterior cladding" is commonly attributed to exterior wall cladding, with respect to a roof assembly, it would also include the wind loads on a roof assembly.
3.
Yes.
Item 1.18 of Schedule B requires the Architectural Registered Professional of Record be responsible for the design and field review of “roofing and flashings”.
Item 1.23 of Schedule B requires the Architectural Registered Professional of Record be responsible for the design and field review of “Environmental separation requirements (Part 5)”.
Although the architect has overall responsibility for roofing systems, they can rely upon supporting registered professionals to assist in fulfilling their obligations described in their Schedule B. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0274 |
Fire Separation between a Garbage or Recycling Room and a Storage Garage |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0274 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.
2023-10-06
Interpretation Date:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Fire Separation between a Garbage or Recycling Room and a Storage Garage
Keywords:
Fire Separation, Storage Garage, Combustible Waste
Building Code Reference(s):
3.3.5.6.(1), 3.6.2.5.(1)
Question:
What fire-resistance rating is required for the fire separation between a room for storage of combustible waste and an adjacent storage (parking) garage?
Interpretation:
1.5 h.
Sentence 3.6.2.5.(1) requires that a room for the storage of combustible waste must be separated from the remainder of the building by at least a 1 h fire separation and must be sprinklered. There is a reference to an exception in Sentence 3.6.3.3.(9) which requires a 2 h fire separation for a room where a refuse chute discharges. This question is assumed to refer to a room without a refuse chute.
Sentence 3.3.5.6.(1) requires a 1.5 h fire separation between a storage garage and another occupancy, with limited exceptions for dwelling units which are not relevant for this question. In the BCBC, “Occupancy means the use or intended use of a building or part thereof for the shelter or support of persons, animals or property.” The combustible waste is a form of property.
In a common configuration in a Part 3 building, a garbage room or recycling room is adjacent to a parking garage. The garbage room or recycling room serves non-parking occupancies in the building, and it is a different occupancy from the parking garage. As such, a 1.5 h fire separation is required between the garbage or recycling room and the parking garage, in conformance with Sentence 3.3.5.6.(1).
The Building Code Appeal Board has several rulings on a related subject, for the fire separation required between residential storage rooms and a parking garage, where the requirements are similar to those for a room for storage of combustible waste. This interpretation is consistent with those BCAB decisions. Refer to BCAB Decisions #1411, #1457, #1588 and #1650. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0275 |
Spatial Separation in Rural Areas |
21/11/2023 |
File No: 18-0275 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.
2024-01-15
Interpretation Date:
November 21, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book I: General
Subject:
Spatial Separation in Rural Areas
Keywords:
Spatial separation; Limiting distance; Rural fire fighting; Means of escape; Window clustering
Building Code Reference(s):
9.10.15.3.; 9.10.15.4.(3)
Question(s):
Can Sentence 9.10.15.4.(3) be used independently to calculate the allowable amount of glazed openings for single dwellings, by omitting required openings for bedroom windows, where the limiting distance is less than 2 meters and the dwelling is constructed in a location with a delayed fire response?
No – The requirements of Article 9.10.15.3. and Sentence 9.10.15.4.(3) address different concerns.
The spatial separation requirements of the Building Code were developed on the basic assumption that glazed openings in an exposing building face are evenly spaced. The provisions of Sentence 9.10.15.4.(3), are intended to provide an upper limit to the degree that glazed openings may be clustered, in order to limit the excessive radiant thermal exposure to immediately adjacent surfaces. Because there are specific cases requiring addition consideration due to specific protection, or due to other needs, the provisions of Sentence 9.10.15.4.(3) include an exception for windows intended as a means of egress from dwelling units.
In a rural setting, the provision of 9.10.15.3. must also be considered. The general assumption of the Building Code is that the effective firefighting response in a rural area could be delayed due to a variety of reasons including the availability of firefighters, equipment, longer distances, limited infrastructure, and so on. To accommodate this, Article 9.10.15.3 requires that only half the actual limiting distance be considered in areas where fire response is expected to be delayed.
The application statement in Sentence 9.10.15.3.(1) provides an exemption for 9.10.15.4.(3) but this does not mean that the general provisions for spatial separation in rural environments can be ignored. Sentence 9.10.15.4.(3) provides provisions solely pertaining to the clustering of glazed openings and no exemption is provided for Sentence 9.10.15.4.(1). Thus, the only permission provided is that windows providing a means of egress from a bedroom may be clustered in a manner that exceeds 50% of the total allowable aggregate area of glazed openings. It is not the intention of this exception to allow the rural spatial separation restrictions to be circumvented by omitting windows providing a means of egress from the aggregate area of glazed opening.
In practice, this means that windows providing means of egress from bedrooms may be clustered in a manner that exceed the 50% maximum, but these must still be included in the overall permitted percentage of glazed opening, based on half the normal limiting distance where Article 9.10.15.3. applies. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0276 |
Sign Affixed to a Building |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0276 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.
2023-10-06
Interpretation Date:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Sign affixed to a Building
Keywords:
Sign, building
Building Code Reference(s):
Division A, 1.1.1.1.(2)(b), Division B, 3.1.16.1.,4.1.8.18., 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.2., 9.4.1.1.(c)
Question:
1.
Does a sign that is affixed to a building fall under the BCBC?
2.
If so, does it fall under Part 4 and would the design and construction require the involvement of a professional engineer?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes, but with limited requirements.
Signs that are affixed to the exterior of a building generally is not regulated by the BCBC except the way they are attached to the building. This is similar to how the code applies to communication aerials and towers that are attached to buildings as per Clause 1.1.1.1.(2)(b) in Division A.
Signs come in different sizes, weights and materials and there are different ways to attach them to the building. They should be treated as architectural components that are attached to the building. The following requirements may apply:
•
structural attachment to the building to account for the wind load and seismic load
•
dead load of the sign applied to the building
•
penetration of the building envelope
2.
Yes.
If the sign is attached to a Part 9 building, then Part 9 would apply. However, there is no prescriptive requirements to design the attachment of the sign to the building in Part 9.
According to Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c) it shall be designed according to Part 4.
If the sign is attached to a Part 3 building, then Part 4 would apply.
Article 3.1.16.1. may apply to fabric awning and canopy signs. Article 4.1.8.18. may apply to the design of seismic restraint of the sign as exterior ornamentations and appendages.
Articles 5.2.2.1.and 5.2.2.2. may apply to the environmental loads for the design of the signs.
Depending on size, weight and material the structural design and construction may require the involvement of a professional engineer.
It is recommended that you discuss the requirements for signs with the appropriate AHJ since each jurisdiction may have a sign bylaw that regulates design and construction of signs.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0278 |
Exiting From the Second Floor |
21/05/2024 |
File No: 18-0278 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-10-06
Interpretation Date:
May 21, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Exiting from the second floor
Keywords:
Required Exit from second floor, Travel Distance
Building Code Reference(s):
3.1.3.1.; 3.2.2.; 3.4.2.1.(2); 3.4.2.2.(2)
Question:
1.
Does the exit stair, from a single suite on the second floor of a two-storey building that is constructed above a part of the ground floor and the area and travel distance does not exceed the limits stated in Tables 3.4.2.1.-A or 3.4.2.1.-B, require a full fire-rated enclosure separated from the ground floor.
2.
Can the fire-rated enclosure of the stair be omitted on the second floor?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes.
As per Sentence 3.4.2.1.(2), a floor area can be served with a single exit in the two-storey building providing that the occupant load is not more than 60, the area & travel distance are not more than that permitted in Tables 3.4.2.1.A. or B. Construction requirements to determine the required fire separation of the floor and walls separating this suite from the remainder of the building and other occupancies shall comply with Article 3.1.3.1. and Subsection 3.2.2.
2.
Yes.
The second floor and the stair leading down to the vestibule must be fire separated from the occupancy on the ground floor as noted above. There is no requirement to separate the stair from the second floor as the stair is a means of egress that is part of the second floor. Note that calculation of the Travel Distance must begin at the furthest corner of the second floor, follow the incline of stair down to the stair door of the fire- rated vestibule. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0279 |
Use of 90° Elbow to Join Two Soil-or-Waste Pipes |
17/10/2023 |
File No: 18-0279 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-11-14
Interpretation Date:
October 17, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Use of 90° Elbow to Join Two Soil-or-Waste Pipes
Keywords:
90° Elbow, Soil-or-Waste Pipe
Building Code Reference(s):
2.2.4.3.(1), 2.2.4.3.(2) of BCPC
Question:
1.
Can a 90° elbow which is 1.5” in size, whose centre-line radius is equal to or greater than 1.5”, be used to join two soil-or-waste pipes in the fixture outlet pipe serving a kitchen sink?
2.
Can a 90° elbow which is 1.5” in size, whose centre-line radius is less than 1.5”, be used to join two soil-or-waste pipes in the fixture outlet pipe serving a kitchen sink?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes.
Sentence 2.2.4.3.(1) permits 90° elbows that are 4” size or less that have a centre-line radius which is equal to or greater than the size of the pipe to join two soil-or-waste pipes anywhere in a drainage system. These are sometimes referred to as long sweep elbows.
2.
No.
Sentence 2.2.4.3.(2) limits the use of 90° elbows that are 4” size or less that have a centre-line radius which is less than the size of the pipe to those specific locations described in this Sentence. These are sometimes referred to as short sweep or vent elbows.
This Interpretation is consistent with Interpretation 06-0017.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0280 |
Insulation of Domestic Hot Water Recirculation Piping |
17/10/2023 |
File No: 18-0280 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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:
October 17, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Insulation of Domestic Hot Water Recirculation Piping
Keywords:
Domestic Hot Water, Recirculating Service Water Heating, Insulation
Building Code Reference(s):
9.36.4.4.(2)
Question:
Does a recirculating service water heating system that may be programmed to run continuously require the piping insulation as per Sentence 9.36.4.4.(2)?
Interpretation:
Yes.
If a recirculation system may be programmed to run continuously the piping would need to be covered with piping insulation at least 12 mm thick.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0281 |
Testing of Drainage Pipes in a Storm Drainage System |
17/10/2023 |
File No: 18-0281 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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:
October 17, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Testing of Drainage Pipes in a Storm Drainage System
Keywords:
Storm Drainage System, Testing
Building Code Reference(s):
2.3.6.1.(1) of the BCPC
Question:
1.
Does a storm drainage system require testing to conform with Sentence 2.3.6.1.(1)?
2.
If the answer to Question 1 is yes, can the registered professional of record waive the requirement for the testing of an interior storm drainage system if they deem it unnecessary?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes.
Sentence 2.3.6.1.(1) clearly states that, except for an external leader, after a section of a drainage system or venting system has been roughed in, a water pressure test or an air pressure test shall be conducted. The term “drainage system” is a defined term which includes pipes that convey storm water.
2.
No.
There is no exclusion which permits the registered professional of record to waive the requirement for testing of drainage systems.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0282 |
Seismic Restraint for Pendant Lights |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0282 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-10-06
Interpretation Date:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Seismic Restraint for Pendant Lights
Keywords:
Seismic, restraint, pendant lights
Building Code Reference(s):
4.1.8.18.(12)
Question:
Is secondary cabling for seismic restraint required for isolated suspended equipment such as pendant lighting?
Interpretation:
No (with conditions).
Sentence 4.1.8.18.(12) permits isolated suspended equipment such as pendant lighting to be designed as a pendulum which can freely swing during a seismic event.
The vertical chain or cable that supports the pendant light must be capable of supporting 2 times the weight of the suspended component.
The pendant light must be positioned such that it does not come in contact with any other building component when it swings like a pendulum at an angle of 45 degrees.
77777777Refer to Structural Commentaries to the 2015 NBCC - Commentary J – Article 242 for further information. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0283 |
Connection of Condensate Drains to a Drainage System |
17/10/2023 |
File No: 18-0283 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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:
October 17, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Connection of Condensate Drains to a Drainage System
Keywords:
Condensate Drain, Indirect / Direct Connection,
Building Code Reference(s):
2.4.2.1.(1)(e)(vi), 2.4.2.1.(1)(d) of the BCPC
1.
Can a condensate drain from a Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) unit be directly connected to a sanitary drainage system?
2.
Can a condensate drain from a condensing boiler be directly connected to a sanitary drainage system?
Interpretation:
1.
No.
Clause 2.4.2.1.(1)(d) permits fixtures or appliances that discharge only clear-water waste, such as an HRV unit, to be directly connected to a storm drainage system. However, if the choice was made to connect this drain to a sanitary drainage system, an indirect connection would be required to comply with Subclause 2.4.2.1.(1)(e)(vi).
2.
No.
Subclause 2.4.2.1.(1)(e)(vi) would also require an indirect connection for the drain from a condensing boiler. The condensate from a condensing boiler would not be considered clear-water waste and therefore would not be able to discharge to a storm drainage system.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0284 |
Townhouse Exterior Exit on Vehicle Access Route |
17/10/2023 |
File No: 18-0284 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.
2023-10-25
Interpretation Date:
October 17, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Townhouse Exterior Exit on Vehicle Access Route
Keywords:
Townhouse, Exit, Vehicle Access
Question:
For a Part 9 building:
1.
Is the exterior exit route from a townhouse unit permitted to discharge along a vehicle access route, to a public thoroughfare?
2.
Does the Building Code regulate the slope of a public thoroughfare?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes, if the vehicle access route meets requirements for an exit.
The BCBC defines “exit” as:
Exit means that part of a means of egress, including doorways, that leads from the floor area it serves to a separate building, an open public thoroughfare, or an exterior open space protected from fire exposure from the building and having access to an open public thoroughfare.
The exterior exit route that leads to a public thoroughfare or an exterior open space as described above is part of the exit as defined by the BCBC, and is subject to the requirements for exits. There are many variations in vehicle access routes and it is difficult to generalize for all of them. The vehicle access route can be part of an exit if it is safe for use by persons exiting from the building and if it meets BCBC requirements for an exit.
___________________________________
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.
2023-10-25
For many townhouse developments the vehicle route can be part of the exit because there is minimal hazard to occupants from moving vehicles. This requires some judgement and should be reviewed with the authority having jurisdiction. Depending on the configuration, there may also be other applicable requirements such as handrails for walking routes on ramps.
2.
No.
The slopes of public thoroughfares are not subject to BCBC requirements unless they are part of a building located on the public thoroughfare. Public thoroughfares are typically owned by the applicable local government and may be subject to other municipal engineering standards.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0285 |
Masonry and Concrete Chimneys and Flues Clearances |
21/11/2023 |
File No: 18-0285 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-01-13
Interpretation Date:
November 21, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Masonry and concrete chimneys and flues Clearances
Keywords:
Chimneys, clearances, combustibles
Building Code Reference(s):
9.21.5.1.(1), (2) and (3)
Question:
Sentence 9.21.5.1.(1) regulates clearances between masonry or concrete chimneys and combustible framing. Does the combustible framing include paneling and any other combustibles?
Yes.
Sentence 9.21.5.1.(1) requires minimum clearances to any combustible framing and combustible materials.
Drywall is not considered a combustible material for this Sentence, so it can encroach into the required clearances, but it cannot be used to reduce the minimum required clearances to combustible materials.
The intent of this requirement is “to limit the probability that excessive heat transfer, by conduction or radiation, from masonry or concrete chimneys (especially during chimney fires) will lead to the ignition of combustible building components, which could lead to damage to the building”.
Combustible framing in this context includes combustible studs, sheathing, floor joists or roof joists or other associated items required for structural support of the assembly.
Sentences 9.21.5.1.(2) and (3) address separate conditions, measuring combustible elements beyond the combustible framing of Sentence (1). |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0286 |
Lateral Bracing of Mezzanine Floors |
21/11/2023 |
File No: 18-0286 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-01-13
Interpretation Date:
November 21, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Lateral bracing of mezzanine floors
Keywords:
Bracing, braced wall bands, mezzanine
Building Code Reference(s):
9.23.13.4., 9.23.13.5., 9.23.13.7.
Question:
This project is a 3-storey, Part 9 building. The uppermost storey is a mezzanine that is supported on 3 sides with exterior walls and open to the floor below on the 4th side.
1.
Is the mezzanine floor required to have braced wall bands on all 4 sides of the floor assembly?
2.
If so, can the braced wall bands that provide lateral restraint to the open floor side of the mezzanine be located within an interior wall beneath the mezzanine?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes.
Although lateral restraint of mezzanine floors is not specifically addressed in Subsection 9.23.13., Sentence 9.23.13.4.(3) does address split level floors where braced wall bands are required along the change in floor level.
2.
Yes.
The braced wall bands serving split level floors are installed at interior walls along the change in floor level. Similarly, the braced wall bands serving a mezzanine floor can be located in an interior wall beneath the front edge of the mezzanine floor.
As required by Sentences 9.23.13.4.(1) and 9.23.13.5.(1), the braced wall bands must extend from the foundation to the underside of the mezzanine floor and they must align on Levels 1 and 2. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0287 |
Fire Rating for Wood Frame Assemblies |
22/09/2023 |
File No: 18-0287 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2023-10-06
Interpretation Date:
September 22, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Fire rating for wood frame assemblies
Keywords:
Fire rating, membrane ceilings, wood roof trusses
Building Code Reference(s):
3.1.7.1.(4), Table A-9.10.3.1-B
Question:
For Part 3 wood frame buildings, can the fire resistance of a floor or roof assembly be based on the provisions of Table A-9.10.3.1.- B
Interpretation:
No (with 2 exceptions described in Items 3 & 4 below).
The determination of fire-resistance rating of a floor or roof assembly in a Part 3 building must meet the requirements of Article 3.1.7.1.
This Article provides 4 options for determining fire-resistance ratings:
1.
Assemblies that have been tested to CAN/ULC S101,
2.
Designed to the requirements of Appendix D,
3.
A wood roof assembly with wood trusses is permitted to be assigned a fire- resistance rating in accordance with Assembly Number R1 in Table A-9.10.3.1.- B
4.
A ceiling membrane for floor or roof assemblies is permitted to be assigned a fire-77777777778877777788resistance rating in accordance with Assembly Number M1 and M2 in Table A-9.10.3.1.- B |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0288 |
Special Outlet Boxes for Future Strobe Lights |
21/11/2023 |
File No: 18-0288 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.
2024-02-02
Interpretation Date:
November 21, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Special outlet boxes for future strobe lights
Keywords:
Outlet box, future strobes
Building Code Reference(s):
3.2.4.19.(6), 3.8.2.12.(5), 3.8.5.3.(4)
Question:
For Part 3 buildings that are provided with a fire alarm system, can the special outlet boxes for future strobe lights as described in Sentence 3.2.4.19.(6) be provided using the fire alarm audible device outlet box rather than a separate outlet box c/w cover plate?
Interpretation:
Yes.
The purpose of the prewired special outlet boxes for future strobes is to make it simple for a person with hearing challenges to install strobe lights within their suite in the future.
The latest electrical technology now includes combination fire alarm audible devices c/w built in strobe lights.
It is a fairly simple exercise for a certified electrician to replace an existing fire alarm audible device with a combination speaker/strobe device. Therefore, the outlet box used for the fire alarm audible device can be used as a special outlet box as described in Sentence 3.2.4.19.(6).
Additional prewiring is required to the fire alarm audible devices to accommodate the future strobes and should be permanently identified as “FIRE – Strobe Light Connection Only” as required by Clause 3.2.4.19.(6)(b).
Sentence 3.2.4.19.(7) requires that adequate provision be provided in the fire alarm system to provide additional power to accommodate future strobes for at least 20% of the residential suites that are required to have special outlet boxes.
It should be noted that the special outlet boxes must be located in accordance with Clause Sentence 3.2.4.19.(6)(c) which includes all rooms closed off from the living room by a door, including bathrooms. Since audible devices are not normally installed in bathrooms, a separate special outlet box could be installed in bathrooms in lieu of the audible device.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0289 |
Normal & Emergency Lighting for Exterior Exits |
17/10/2023 |
File No: 18-0289 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:
October 17, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Normal & Emergency Lighting for Exterior Exits
Keywords:
Lighting, exterior exit walkways
Building Code Reference(s):
1.4.1.2. of Div A, 3.2.7.1.(1), 3.2.7.3.(1)(a), 3.2.3.13.(1)
Question:
Do exterior exit stairs, ramps and walkways located on the ground level require minimum lighting levels under both normal and emergency power?
Interpretation:
Yes (for certain portions).
Sentence 3.2.7.1.(1) requires “exits” to have illumination under normal power to an average level of not less than 50 lx at the floor or tread level and at angles and intersections at changes of level where there are stairs or ramps.
Clause 3.2.7.3.(1)(a) requires “exits” to have illumination under emergency power to an average level of not less than 10 lx at the floor or tread level.
Article 1.4.1.2. of Division A of the BCBC defines “exit” as follows:
“Exit means that part of a means of egress, including doorways, that leads from the floor area it serves to a separate building, an open public thoroughfare, or an exterior open space protected from fire exposure from the building and having access to an open public thoroughfare.”
So, the minimum extent of both normal and emergency lighting is from the location where an occupant exits the building to “an exterior open space protected from fire exposure from the building and having access to an open public thoroughfare.”
3.2.3.13.(1) requires exit exposure protection for a horizontal distance of 3m from an unprotected opening. This implies that if a person is in an exterior open space that is 3m away from the building, they would be considered to be in a relatively safe location.
It should be noted that the building code provides a “minimum” level of safety for the design of buildings. Designers should use their discretion to determine if both normal and emergency lighting should extend further than 3m from the building based on the project specific criteria. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0290 |
Location of Drainage Pipe for an Exterior Foundation Wall |
16/01/2024 |
File No: 18-0290 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-02-12
Interpretation Date:
January 16, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Location of Drainage Pipe for an Exterior Foundation Wall
Keywords:
Drainage Pipe, Foundation Wall, Sub-surface Drainage
Building Code Reference(s):
9.14.2.1.(1), 9.14.3.3.(1)
Question:
What is the installation requirement, regarding location relative to the bottom of the foundation wall, for the drainage pipe installed serving an exterior foundation wall?
Interpretation:
Sentence 9.14.2.1.(1) states that “Unless it can be shown to be unnecessary, the bottom of every exterior foundation wall shall be drained by drainage tile or pipe laid around the exterior of the foundation in conformance with Subsection 9.14.3. or by a layer of gravel or crushed rock in conformance with Subsection 9.14.4.”
Sentence 9.14.3.3.(1) states that “Drain tile or pipe shall be laid on undisturbed or well-compacted soil so that the top of the tile or pipe is below the bottom of the floor slab or the ground cover of the crawl space.”
Sentence 9.14.2.1.(1) does not provide any direction for the location of the required exterior foundation wall drainage, “bottom of the wall” being somewhat subjective, and directs the user to Subsection 9.14.3. which gives clear direction as to the height of the drainage pipe, that being the top of the pipe is installed so it is below the bottom of the floor slab.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0291 |
Door Frame Installation to Wall, for Doors in Fire Separations |
21/11/2023 |
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.
2024-01-13
Interpretation Date:
November 21, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Door Frame Installation to Wall, for Doors in Fire Separations
Keywords:
Door, Frame, Fire Separation
Building Code Reference(s):
3.1.8.5.(2), 3.1.8.1.(1), 3.1.9.1.(1)
Question:
Where a door is installed in a wall that is a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating, is firestopping or other treatment required for the joint between the door frame and the adjacent wall, if the door frame is:
1.
Steel?
2.
Wood?
1.
No, in most cases, if the frame is installed in accordance with its listing requirements and the manufacturer’s instructions.
Sentence 3.1.8.5.(2) requires doors serving as closures in fire separations to be installed in accordance with NFPA 80 “Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives”. However, NFPA 80 does not address the joint between a door frame and the adjacent wall assembly. NFPA 80 requires that frames must be anchored as stated in the manufacturer’s listing, and door frames intended for drywall installation must be of the flush butt-mounted type or wrap-around type. Steel door frames are typically the wrap-around type as shown in the example profile below, where the gypsum wallboard extends into the frame.
This type of fire-rated steel frame is expandable, so its width can be adjusted for different wall thicknesses. For this type of frame, there is no gap or open joint between the frame and the wall.
Steel frames are also installed in cast concrete walls and masonry walls. Where the frame is cast in place, there is no gap between the door fame and the wall. Where the door frame is installed after the wall is poured, or is installed in an opening in a masonry wall, the frame will be flush-mounted in the opening. The frame may be filled with grout or other cementitious products or remain hollow, depending on the manufacturer’s requirements. Where the frame is filled in this manner, there should be no gap between the frame and the wall. If the frame remains hollow, there is a possibility of small gaps if the wall opening where the frame is seated does not have consistent square surfaces. In that case, these small gaps could be sealed with the same material used for joints in the wall, such as mortar.
2.
Possibly, depending on the installation.
Wood door frames in fire-rated walls are typically used with doors having 20-minute fire protection ratings, which are usually installed as entry doors to residential suites that are accessed from public corridors. The wood door frames are normally installed flush against the wall framing but there may be gaps to allow the frame to be square and of the required width and height for the door.
Sentence 3.1.8.1.(1) requires fire separations to be continuous elements except where they are interrupted by closures. The joint between a gypsum wallboard membrane and a door frame is not part of the closure, so it needs to be part of the continuous fire separation.
Clause 3.1.9.1.(1)(c) allows (as one option) penetrations through a fire separation to be tightly fitted. If the door frame is tightly fitted to the membrane of the wall, no additional treatment of the joint should be necessary. Note that this provision to allow tightly fitted penetrations is unique to the BCBC and is not part of the National Building Code, and it may or may not be included in future BCBC editions.
Where the door frame is not tightly fitted to the membrane, the BCBC does not provide any guidance on how to seal gaps between the door frame and the wall membrane, and at this time there do not appear to be any listed firestop systems for this type of joint. For this condition, to maintain the continuity of the fire separation it is recommended to seal the gap with a firestopping product that is listed for similar sized spaces and for bonding with wood and gypsum wallboard. The firestopping should not be intumescent type because it could affect the ability to open the door under fire conditions.
This approach should be reviewed with the local authority.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0292 |
Sprinklers in Refuse Storage Rooms in a Part 9 Building |
21/11/2023 |
File No: 18-0292 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-01-13
Interpretation Date:
November 21, 2023
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Sprinklers in refuse storage rooms in a Part 9 building
Keywords:
Sprinklers, combustible refuse, storage, hazardous
Building Code Reference(s):
9.10.1.3.(4), 9.10.10.6.(1)
Question:
For an unsprinklered Part 9 building that contains a combustible refuse storage room, does this storage room have to be sprinklered?
No.
Sentence 9.10.1.3.(4) states that:
“Where rooms or spaces are intended for the storage, manufacture or use of hazardous or explosive material, such rooms or spaces shall conform to Part 3. (See Note A-3.3.1.2.(1).)”
Sentence 9.10.10.6.(1) states that temporary storage of combustible refuse in all occupancies shall be separated from the remainder of the building with a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating of 1 hour in an unsprinklered building, and this fire-resistance rating can be reduced to 45 minutes if the storage room is sprinklered.
Since Sentence 9.10.10.6.(1) specifically addresses combustible refuse storage rooms in unsprinklered Part 9 buildings, the requirements of Sentence 9.10.1.3.(4) do not apply and the combustible refuse storage room can be designed to Part 9 rather than Part 3. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0293 |
Foundation Walls above Finished Ground Level |
16/01/2024 |
File No: 18-0293 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-02-12
Interpretation Date:
January 16, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Foundation Walls above Finished Ground Level
Keywords:
Foundation walls, slab on grade, finished ground level
Building Code Reference(s):
9.15.4.6.
Question:
For a Part 9 single dwelling unit where the ground floor level is slab on grade with a thickened slab to act as the foundation (i.e. there are no foundation walls), does the requirement of Article 9.15.4.6. to extend exterior foundation walls to not less than 150 mm above finished ground level apply?
Interpretation:
No (but there are several other provisions that may apply).
Article 9.15.4.6. only applies to exterior foundation walls.
If a building does not have exterior foundation walls, Article 9.15.4.6. does not apply.
There are several other requirements for slabs on grade which do apply:
•
Article 9.14.1.3. requires drainage beneath floors on ground in accordance with Section 9.16.
•
Article 9.14.6.1. requires site grading to prevent water from accumulating at or near the building.
•
Article 9.16.1.2. requires floors on ground that support loads from the superstructure be designed to Part 4.
•
Sentence 9.27.2.4.(1) requires a minimum clearance of 200 mm between finished ground level and any cladding that is adversely affected by moisture. Refer also to BCIC Interpretation 98-0006.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0295 |
Roof-top Service Room for Townhouse Unit |
16/01/2024 |
File No: 18-0295 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
___________________________________
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.
2024-02-12
Interpretation Date:
January 16, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Roof-top Service Room for Townhouse Unit
Keywords:
Service Room, Roof-top, Storey
Building Code Reference(s):
3.2.1.1.(1)
Question:
In a Part 3 building, where a roof-top service room above a townhouse unit contains building services for only that townhouse and not for the other parts of the building, is it required to be considered as a storey in calculating building height?
Interpretation:
No.
Clause 3.2.1.1.(1)(a) states that a roof-top enclosure provided for a service room shall not be considered as a storey in calculating building height. The BCBC defines a service room as “a room provided in a building to contain equipment associated with building services”.
With respect to application of Clause 3.2.1.1.(1)(a), it does not matter whether the service room contains services for the entire building or for only part of the building such as a single townhouse unit. In this context, “building services” refers to the type of systems or equipment within the room and not to whether they serve any specific part of the building or the entire building. If the roof-top room complies with the definition of a service room, it is not required to be considered as a storey, regardless of how much of the building it serves.
Note that the rooftop enclosure is permitted to be used as a service room, but cannot be used for storage. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0296 |
Window Between the Attached Garage and Dwelling Unit |
16/01/2024 |
File No: 18-0296 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-02-12
Interpretation Date:
January 16, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Window between the Attached Garage and Dwelling Unit
Keywords:
Storage Garage, Bedroom Egress Window
Building Code Reference(s):
9.9.10.; 9.10.13.15.(2); 9.10.9.16.(4)(a)
Question:
1.
Can a fixed window be installed in a wall adjacent to an attached garage serving a dwelling unit?
2.
Can an operable window be installed in a wall adjacent to an attached garage serving a dwelling unit?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes, with conditions.
Clause 9.10.9.16.(4)(a) requires that an air barrier system be provided between a garage and the remainder of the building. Provided the fixed window is designed to maintain an effective barrier against the passage of gas and exhaust fumes, it is permitted.
2.
No.
As noted in answer to question 1, installation of the operable window will not satisfy the requirements of air tightness.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0298 |
Barrier to Vapour Diffusion |
16/01/2024 |
File No: 18-0298 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-02-12
Interpretation Date:
January 16, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Barrier to Vapour Diffusion
Keywords:
Heat Transfer, Air Leakage, Condensation Control, Vapour Barrier
Building Code Reference(s):
9.25.4.1.
Question:
Does the Building Code provide specific installation details of a vapour barrier?
Interpretation:
No.
The Code does not provide specific installation details of a vapour barrier. Sentence 9.25.4.1.(1) sets a minimum set of requirements for moisture control requiring a vapour barrier to provide a barrier to diffusion of water vapour from interior spaces into wall spaces, floor spaces or attic or roof spaces. The Code requires vapour diffusion to be limited, but not eliminated entirely. Notes A-9.25.5.1. provide guidance regarding the relationship of vapour barriers to construction assemblies in different climates.
The Designer needs to detail the vapour barrier installation to ensure they meet the intent of the code “to limit the probability of an uncontrolled diffusion of water vapour from air in heated space into insulated wall, ceiling and floor assemblies”
Sentence 9.25.5.1.(2) states that when the interior space results in high moisture generation, the assembly shall be designed to Part 5. Notes A-9.25.5.1. provide guidance on what a high moisture generating use may be.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0299 |
Bidets – Public Use |
13/02/2024 |
File No: 18-0299 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-02-28
Interpretation Date:
February 13, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018, Book II: Plumbing Systems (BCPC) and BC Building Code Book I: General
Subject:
Bidets – Public Use
Keywords:
Bidet, Public Use
Building Code Reference(s):
2.6.3.2(1), Table 2.6.3.2.-A, 2.6.3.2.(2). of the BCPC
Question:
Since there are no fixture unit values listed in the public use column of Table 2.6.3.2.-A for a bidet, does this mean a bidet may only be installed in a private bathroom?
Interpretation:
No.
Table 2.6.3.2.-A is used to establish the hydraulic load, expressed in fixture units, for a given fixture (for sizing the water distribution system) and does not limit the use of fixtures. There are no limitations within the BCPC restricting the use of a bidet to bathrooms intended for the use of one family or an individual (private use) only.
The fixture unit value assigned to a bidet installed for public use can be determined in accordance with Sentence 2.6.3.2.(2) using Table 2.6.3.2.-D.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0300 |
Radon Rough-in Requirement for Habitable Space Over Garage |
13/02/2024 |
File No: 18-0300 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-02-29
Interpretation Date:
February 13, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Radon Rough-in Requirement for Habitable Space Over Garage
Keywords:
Radon, Rough-in
Building Code Reference(s):
9.13.4.1.(1)(a), 9.13.4.2.(1), 9.13.4.2.(2), 9.10.9.16.(4)(a)
Question:
Where there is a dwelling unit, or portions of a dwelling unit, located above an unconditioned space such as a garage, that has a floor-on-ground, is a rough-in for a radon extraction system required below the floor-on-ground?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 9.13.4.2.(2) states “Except as permitted by Sentence (4), unless the space between the air barrier system and the ground is designed to be accessible for the future installation of a subfloor depressurization system, dwelling units and buildings containing residential occupancies shall be provided with the rough-in for a radon extraction system conforming to Article 9.13.4.3.”
In the case of an unconditioned space, such as a garage which incorporates a floor-on-ground, this would provide the space necessary to install mitigating features should the presence of radon be detected in the building. In the situation where the unconditioned space is a garage an air barrier system conforming to Clause 9.10.9.16.(4)(a) would also be required to separate the garage from the habitable space. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0301 |
Landing at Entrance Stair to Single Family Dwelling |
18/06/2024 |
File No: 18-0301 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.
2024-07-09
Interpretation Date:
June 18, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Landing at Entrance Stair to Single Family Dwelling
Keywords:
Stair, Landing, Dwelling Unit
Building Code Reference(s):
9.8.6.2, 9.8.3.2
Questions:
1.
Is a landing required at the main exterior entrance stair to a single family dwelling unit?
2.
How many risers constitute a stair?
Interpretation:
1.
Yes.
Article 9.8.6.2 requires a landing at the top and bottom of each flight of interior and exterior stairs, except that the landing can be omitted at each of the following:
•
The top of a stair within a dwelling unit, where the door swings away from the stair.
•
The top of an exterior flight serving a secondary entrance to a single dwelling unit or a house with a secondary suite including their common spaces, provided the stair does not contain more than 3 risers, the principal door is a sliding door or swings away from the stair, and only a storm door or screen door, if any, swings over the stair and it is equipped with hardware to hold it open.
•
The bottom of an exterior stair if there is no obstruction such as a gate or door within 900 mm.
The first two exceptions noted above do not apply to an exterior stair to the main entrance of a dwelling unit. The third exception could apply, if the stair travel is downward toward the dwelling unit entry door. However, the requirement for no obstruction such as a gate or door within 900 mm of the bottom of the stair effectively means that a 900 mm deep landing is required between the stair and the entry door to the unit. There are no exceptions that would permit the landing to be omitted at the top of the main exterior entrance stair to a dwelling unit.
2.
Two.
The term “stair” is not defined in the BCBC. Sentence 9.8.3.2.(1) requires interior flights of stairs to have at least 3 risers, except for stairs within a dwelling unit. Where a stair flight is permitted to have less than 3 risers, there is no lower limit to the number of risers. However, BC Building Code Appeal Board decision 1452 stated that a single step would be better described as serving a stoop, porch or platform, instead of a stair landing. There may also be locations where applying the BCBC stair requirements to a single riser would not be appropriate. Locations with a single step should be reviewed with the authority having jurisdiction but in general a single step should not be considered as a stair. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0302 |
Separation Distance Between Exits in an Open Floor Area |
13/02/2024 |
File No: 18-0302 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.
2024-03-05
Interpretation Date:
February 13, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Separation Distance Between Exits in an Open Floor Area
Keywords:
Exit, Floor Area
Building Code Reference(s):
3.4.2.3, A-3.4.2.3.(1)
Question:
Two exits in an open floor area are located to satisfy the separation distance requirement between exits. One of the exit doors leads into an exit corridor but there is also another exit door into the same exit corridor, and it is closer to the other remote exit. Does this additional door into the exit corridor affect compliance with the separation distance requirement for the other 2 exit doors?
Interpretation:
No.
In a floor area that does not have a public corridor, Clause 3.4.2.3.(1)(b) requires that the least distance between 2 exits in a floor area shall be one half the maximum diagonal dimension of the floor area, but not less than 9 m. There are exceptions in Sentence 3.4.2.3.(2) but they are not applicable in this case. Sentence 3.4.2.3.(3) states that this minimum distance shall be the shortest distance that smoke would have to travel between the exits, assuming smoke will not penetrate an intervening fire separation.
Clause 3.4.2.3.(1)(b) requires a separation distance between 2 exits, not between each possible combination of 2 exits. The intent statement for Sentence 3.4.2.3.(1) notes that the intent is to limit the probability that exits will be located too close to one another, which could lead to persons not having a choice of an alternative egress route in the event that one route to the exits is blocked or obstructed in a fire situation.
Where there are more than 2 exits from a floor area, only 2 of the exits need to meet the separation distance requirement. If there are other exits in the intervening distance between the 2 widely separated exits, those other exits do not affect persons having a choice of travelling to the farther exit. The arrangement with the exits in the intervening distance will comply directly with Clause 3.4.2.3.(1)(b) and also with the intent statement, provided the 2 widely separated exits comply with Clause 3.4.2.3.(1)(b). This is further stated in Note A-3.4.2.3.(1), excerpted below.
It does not matter if an exit in the intervening space between 2 widely separated exits leads into the same exit corridor as one of the 2 widely separated exits. This additional door into the exit corridor does not affect the separation distance between the widely separated exits.
In the sketch below, the maximum diagonal dimension is measured as the greatest horizontal distance across the floor area. As defined in the BCBC, “floor area” excludes exits. The distance between exit doors A and C is more than half of the maximum diagonal dimension, and therefore the exit separation distance is code compliant. The distance between doors B and C is not relevant. |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0304 |
Seismic Force Resisting Systems (SFRS) |
13/02/2024 |
File No: 18-0304 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 4
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.
2024-03-05
Interpretation Date:
February 13, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Seismic Force Resisting Systems (SFRS)
Keywords:
seismic, force, resisting, systems, SFRS
Building Code Reference(s):
4.1.8.9.(1) & (4), Table 4.1.8.9.
Question:
When using Table 4.1.8.9. for Seismic Force Resisting Systems (SFRS):
1.
Does a sloping site affect the measurement of the maximum height of an SFRS?
2.
When a building contains a sloping roof, is the maximum height of an SFRS measured to the uppermost roof surface?
3.
When a building’s SFRS consists of multiple vertically varying systems (e.g. a 5-storey wood frame structure on top of a 1 storey concrete podium), does Sentence 4.1.8.9.(4) limit the overall SFRS height to that of the system with the larger RdRo ratio?
Interpretation:
1.
No.
For the purposes of calculating building height when using Table 4.1.8.9., grade is defined in Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. as the lowest of the average levels of finished ground adjoining each exterior wall of the building.
First storey is defined in Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. as the uppermost storey having its floor level not more than 2m above grade.
Building height is defined in Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. as the number of storeys contained between the roof and the first storey.
Refer to Item 153 below from the Structural Commentary for further clarification.
No.
The maximum height of an SFRS is measured to the top of the vertical seismic resisting structural elements, which would typically be the uppermost height of the shear walls. If the uppermost storey has a horizontal ceiling, it would be the height of the uppermost ceiling.
Various Options are Available.
Items 142 to 145 of 2015 NBCC Structural Commentary J describe how to deal with superimposed structures that have variable RdRo. It should be noted that the “DRAFT” version of the 2020 NBCC Structural Commentary J appears to have deleted Item 145.
For a 5-storey wood frame structure over top of a 1 storey concrete podium, common practice is to measure the height of the wood frame portion from the top of the concrete podium. This is clarified in ASCE-22 as indicated below: |
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0306 |
Door Widths and Heights Within Part 9 Spaces that are not Dwelling Units |
13/02/2024 |
Interpretation Date:
February 13, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Door Widths and Heights Within Part 9 Spaces that are not Dwelling Units
Keywords:
Door, doorway, width, height
Building Code Reference(s):
9.5.2.1.(1), 9.5.5.1., 9.5.5.2., 9.5.5.3., 9.9.6.2., 9.9.6.3.,
Question:
Table 9.5.5.1. provides minimum doorways sizes for doors within dwelling units.
Are there similar requirements for doors within Part 9 spaces other than dwelling units (e.g. office suites, industrial spaces, residential amenity rooms)?
Interpretation:
Yes.
Sentence 9.5.2.1.(1) requires that, except as provided in Article 3.8.2.1, every Part 9 building must be designed in conformance with Subsection 3.8. for access for persons with disabilities.
Sentence 3.8.3.6.(2) requires all doors within an accessible path of travel to have a minimum clear opening width of 850 mm. Accessible paths of travel are described in Article 3.8.2.3.
Article 9.5.5.2. requires doors to public water closet rooms be not less than 810 mm wide and 2030 mm high.
Article 9.5.5.3. requires doors to rooms that contain a bathtub, shower or water closet be not less than 760 mm wide when the room is served by a corridor that is a minimum 860 mm wide.
Articles 9.9.6.2. and 9.9.6.3. provided minimum clear opening heights (2030 mm) and widths (800 mm) for the following types of doorways in Part 9 buildings:
•
Exit doors
•
Doors that open into or are located within a public corridor
•
Doors that open into or are located within another facility that provides access to exit from a suite
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0307 |
Requirements for Material Covering Foundation Drainage Pipe |
13/02/2024 |
File No: 18-0307 INTERPRETATION Page 1 of 1
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.
2024-03-05
Interpretation Date:
February 13, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
Requirements for Material Covering Foundation Drainage Pipe
Keywords:
Drainage Pipe, Foundation Wall, Sub-surface Drainage
Building Code Reference(s):
9.14.3.3.(4)
Question:
If a foundation drainage pipe is covered with 150 mm of crushed stone or other coarse clean granular material and then backfilled with sand for the remainder of the depth of the foundation wall, is filter cloth required between the crushed stone and sand?
Interpretation:
No.
Sentence 9.14.3.3.(4) only provides a requirement for 150 mm of crushed stone or other coarse clean granular material containing not more than 10% of material that would pass a 4 mm sieve on the top and sides of the drain pipe. That said, installing a filter cloth to further protect the ability of the drainage pipe to function properly would be beneficial, however it is not a requirement.
|
Download
|
| 2018 |
18-0309 |
EM Power & Manual Controls for Make Up Air Fans Serving Highrise Residential Corridors |
18/06/2024 |
File No: 18-0309 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.
2024-07-09
Interpretation Date:
June 18, 2024
Building Code Edition:
BC Building Code 2018
Subject:
EM Power & Manual Controls for Make Up Air Fans
Serving Highrise Residential Corridors
Keywords:
Emergency power, Make up air fans
Building Code Reference(s):
3.2.6.2.(5) & (6), 3.2.6.7.(2)(i), 3.2.7.9.(1)(c), 3.3.3.6.
Question:
This project is a Part 3 highrise residential building.
1.
If a single make up air (MUA) fan is provided on the roof which supplies air to the residential public corridors on each floor level, does this MUA fan have to be provided with emergency power?
2.
If separate make up air (MUA) fans are provided on each floor level which supply air to the residential public corridor on the respective floor, do these MUA fans have to be provided with emergency power?
3.
Does the MUA fan Question 1 require manual controls at the CACF?
4.
Do the MUA fans in Question 2 require manual controls at the CACF?
Interpretation:
1.
No (except as indicated in BCIC Interpretation 18-0019).
Sentence 3.2.6.2.(6) requires MUA fans that serve residential public corridors to continue running upon activation of a fire alarm to maintain corridor pressurization. This Sentence does not require the MUA fans to continue running under building loss of power.
Clause 3.2.7.9.(1)(c) requires fans be provided with EM power when they are installed to maintain air quality specified in Articles 3.2.6.2. and 3.3.3.6.
The MUA fans serving residential public corridors are not required by Subsection 3.2.6. Articles 3.2.6.2. and 3.3.3.6. do not include any measure of air quality for residential public corridors with respect to highrise measures, so Clause 3.2.7.9.(1)(c) does not apply to MUA fans serving residential public corridors.
Sentence 3.2.6.2.(6) was first introduced in the NBCC 2015. The rationale for this change is described in NRC publication NR24-31-2017 as indicated below:
The primary focus of this code change was to keep the make-up air corridor supply fans running under fire alarm. Although corridor make up air fans are not mandated by Subsection 3.2.6., they are commonly installed to meet ASHRAE ventilation requirements to prevent kitchen odors from migrating from residential suites to the public corridors.
Since most residential projects have corridor make up air supply fans the NBCC 2015 code change simply requires that these fans not to automatically shut down under fire alarm. There was no intent in this code change to mandate the fans to remain operational under building loss of power.
Refer also to BCIC Interpretation 18-0019 for a requirement to connect MUA fans to EM power if the installation of motorized smoke dampers is waived.
2.
No (except as indicated in BCIC Interpretation 18-0019).
Refer to answer to Question 1 above.
3.
Yes.
Clause 3.2.6.7.(2)(i) requires auxiliary equipment that is identified in Articles 3.2.6.2., 3.2.6.3. and 3.2.6.6. be provided with manual controls at the CACF.
3.2.6.2.(5) requires that air moving fans that serve more than 2 storeys must be provided with manual controls at the CACF.
Since the single MUA fan on the roof serves more than 2 storeys, it requires manual controls at the CACF.
4.
No.
Sentence 3.2.6.2.(5) waives the requirement for manual controls at the CACF for fans that serve not more than 2 storeys.
Since the MUA fans in Question 2 only serve 1 storey, they do not require manual controls at the CACF. |
Download
|
