The code does not refer to Strata Space divisions, but if my assumptions of this terminology are correct, likely you are referring to "separation of suites" and/or separation of major occupancies. Both must be considered. 3.1.3.1 must be referenced for major occupancy separations and overrides 3.2.2 where requirements are more stringent. Additionally Section 3.3 Safety within Floor Areas must be referenced to determine possible other fire separation requirements between suites, rooms, public corridors etc. Sorry, I can't recall if I have a video on this process.

Part 9 uses the same definition for "limiting distance" as part 3. So yes, to c/l street on the 2 faces.

@ Thanks. That’s huge, I was scared I’d have to shrink my building like crazy.

There is nothing in 3.4.4.2 stating that doors of other rooms opening into the Lobby needing to swing in a certain direction. The stair door, vestibule door and exterior door would need to swing in the direction of exit travel in my opinion per 3.4.6.12. As the for other rooms doors, direction of swing would be determined per 3.3.1.11.

I have lots of ideas, but not a lot of time :(

Go to my channel homepage and click the "more" button and "view email address" I don't want to post here as bots will find it.

You use the most restrictive requirement of each for any particular item.

@@dcarchtech9757 Thanks!

That was all done in Revit

Hi, l am in the same boat, preparing for EXAC this Nov. and his vids have been very informative, brief and to the point. Good luck on your exams. melikami minyoti :)

That's a good question. I'm not 100% sure what triggered this. Here are some guesses. 1 - Doing this keeps the two exit stairs completely separated from one another. There is likely something that dictates this and on that note, I don't think it is wise for two exists to converge into the same corridor. The two stairs are close together so my guess is that the "required quantity of exits" has been met on the floor via other stairs and that these two stairs could have technically been one wider stair. The positioning and having two of them in the central area of the building was likely also a desired circulation outcome, not just an exit outcome. For example the central atrium space could be closed off for events but then one could be cutting off access to an exit and contravening being able to go in two directions. Having a stair on each side of the atrium alleviates that. 2 - That set of doors does direct people entering the corridor from the north stair to head in the right direction to exit outside. Even though there would be directional exit signs, people could run in the wrong direction so those doors would help prevent that.

I don't think so, but I personally think that non- combustible siding like cement board (Hardie Board) and mineral wool outside insulation under under the siding should be mandatory in forested areas.

Go here and start listening at about 1:45 and then you tell us kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqTdgYF5odWAebc

@@dcarchtech9757 it doesn’t mention height so I think we can

@@AbsMovs I would agree, but you also need to be cognizant of specific limitations when designing to Part 9. For example refer to 9.23.10.1 for maximum unsupported height of wall studs.

I think I shared enough in the video

It is just a way to organize information is all

You are correct! Great job noticing that and thanks for pointing it out.

I have yet to look at that but will likely do. Less known fact is that if something changed in the new code version from past, you will see a solid vertical line next to the article. That will flag that something has changed and then you can compare the two.

Thanks but I have my hands full. I'm truly no expert in THERM. My capabilities are quite limited.

I have never heard of Docs planks. Looked it up and I assume its "Dox Planks" or "Doc's Blocks"? If so, have never seen those used in my area. Email be a picture of your situation and will see if anything comes to mind.

You go by the next higher number line. So in this case the 10 sq.m because you are allowed up to the EBF amount. I have seen instances where the limiting distance has been extrapolated or averaged out to get values for numbers in between. For example if you looked at Table 3.2.3.1 D and one had 18sq.m. EBF with a limiting distance of 3.5m. I personally think that that permitting 80% UPO reasonable. However I don't believe the code explicitly mentions this approach as acceptable or not. Acceptance of that approach would be per the AHJ stance.

Yes, that would be a good idea here as well.

Great question. The definition of "unprotected opening" pretty much says any opening without a closure meeting the minimum required fire resistance rating of the wall. Which would include a frame typically. From my experience, I have found that for anything outside of single family homes that the frame must be included in the area of the unprotected opening. Louvres, vents etc. are also unprotected openings. However, for single family homes falling into 9.10.15 of the code, only the glass area is required to included in the measurement. You will notice that the term "unprotected opening" is not used in this section but rather "glazed opening". I see this as very intentional. So a solid door in anything but a house would need to be included, however a solid door in a house would not. Only the glass area in a door of a house would need be included.

Well, do let me know if I get something wrong! Thanks.

Ya I know. I did that one in silence.

That's not weird. If you put insulation in the stud space then you have prevented heat from the interior getting to that surface so the temp of that surface will drop.