Bowling Alley Addition (keep separate or attach)

[Meadowbend99]

Hi,

I met with a client that is wanting to expand their Bowling Alley. They weren't too happy with my answers on the best ways to move forward so I'd like to see if there are any other ideas that could work for them.

Their wish list: They have an existing bowling alley - tilt-wall construction built in 1983, 28,000 SF and NOT sprinklered. They would like to add on the front of the building approx. 1,000 SF and they would like to build a new 10,000 SF building ideally fully connected to the existing (blow out one side wall and extend) or place the new build 20' away and create an enclosed breezeway/concourse between the two buildings.

Both buildings would be A-3. If they keep the new build under 9,500 SF they can get away with not sprinklering it. However they really want the buildings to have a large open feeling between them. Of course, they would prefer not to sprinkler.

They are currently on a well (not adequate for expansion) and old septic system (their ideal location for expansion is over the leeching field). If going with a sprinkler system they're looking at significant costs. However, they have the possibility of getting annexed by the adjacent city and could get city water/sewer.

If they go with the City, they will make them put in a sprinkler system if they expand over 25%.

Do you see a way to keep the buildings connected without sprinklering and still allowing a huge opening between them? Would a 1 hr. smoke curtain work?

https://ibb.co/ka1a3U

Thanks!

 

[cda]

In the county area of Texas??

 

[RLGA]

Assuming 2015 IBC.

You'll have to use a fire wall--no other way around it without sprinklering.

If fire wall is located on the new building side of the enclosed breezeway, then the breezeway is an addition to the existing building, which will require it to comply with allowable area for the type of construction, which is not indicated. Per IEBC Section 402 (Prescriptive Compliance Method), the addition cannot make the existing building any more noncompliant than it was prior to the addition. Since the existing building would be required to be sprinklered because the fire area exceeds 12,000 sq. ft. under the current code, the addition would make the existing building more noncompliant. Even IEBC Section 1101.2 (Work Area Compliance Method) states that the addition cannot extend any nonconformity in regard to fire safety. So, if using this fire wall location, a fire sprinkler would be required in the existing building, but not in the addition based on fire area size.

If the fire wall is located on the existing building side of the enclosed breezeway, then the enclosed breezeway and new metal building would not be considered an addition, and the existing building can remain unsprinklered (unless there's another provision that would require a sprinkler, such as an increase in the occupant load if the existing building is altered). The enclosed breezeway and new metal building, with a combined area of 11,887 sq. ft., is below the fire area threshold of 12,000 sq. ft., which would not require a sprinkler system per IBC Section 903.2.1.3. Thus, both buildings can exist without a sprinkler system. However, if the Group A-3 fire area (which includes the new metal building and enclosed breezeway if they are not separated by a fire barrier per Table 707.3.10) has an occupant load greater than 300, then a sprinkler system will be required regardless of the fire area size.

The openings within the fire wall could include a few overhead fire doors, a series of swinging fire doors, or a horizontal sliding fire door (like a Won-Door), provided the aggregate width of all openings does not exceed 25% of the fire wall length per IBC Section 706.8 and openings do not exceed 156 sq. ft. each.

 

[Builder Bob]

or use the pedestrian walkway concept of chapter 33 or 34?

 

[RLGA]

or use the pedestrian walkway concept of chapter 33 or 34?

Chapter 31. A pedestrian walkway requires walls and doors at each end (although they could be glass, but the glass would need to be protected by sprinklers). Also, the width would be limited to 30 feet. Based on the length and area shown, the width would be 67’-4”.

Meadowbend99: I just noticed the 867 sq. ft. addition to the existing building down at the bottom of the diagram. Per the comments in my previous post, this addition would trigger sprinklering the existing building, unless that addition is also separated by a fire wall.

 

[Meadowbend99]

Thank you Ron!

I had spoken with the client about using a Won door, it's not quite what they'd like but I think it's the best shot they have at getting what they want without incurring the costs of a sprinkler system. I'm not sure what their occupant load will be just yet, but I think it's possible to keep the new building under 300 occupants, however between both buildings it will be much more.

Right now our jurisdiction is the county, using 2012 IBC. I have another similar project in this county where we were trying to connect a new build that will be sprinklered A-2, with a covered walkway to an existing building and the county told us we would have to sprinkler the existing building. We weren't able to put in a fire wall on the new build (25' distance from old). In response, the client chose to remove the covered walkway.

 

[RLGA]

I have another similar project in this county where we were trying to connect a new build that will be sprinklered A-2, with a covered walkway to an existing building and the county told us we would have to sprinkler the existing building. We weren't able to put in a fire wall on the new build (25' distance from old). In response, the client chose to remove the covered walkway.

If you use the pedestrian walkway requirements that builder bob mentioned, then the buildings would be considered separate buildings and the existing building would not be required to be sprinklered.

 

[ADAguy]

Any consideration to using a water curtain as a separation device?

 

[Meadowbend99]

Meadowbend99: I just noticed the 867 sq. ft. addition to the existing building down at the bottom of the diagram. Per the comments in my previous post, this addition would trigger sprinklering the existing building, unless that addition is also separated by a fire wall.

I don't know what the existing occupant load is for the existing building, they don't have a record of it. I'm assuming it's over 300 for now. If they do the little addition on the front, we can use a fire wall, but that space would be considered part of the existing building. There would be emergency exits from that space but not entrance. If that added space pushes them over 300 (or even more over 300), would that trigger the existing building?

If I put in a fire wall and have an enclosed conditioned breezeway/concourse with a won door, would they consider the two buildings (old & new) as one as far as occupant load goes? Would I need to keep both buildings under 300 or just the new construction?

 

[RLGA]

Meadowbend99: I just noticed the 867 sq. ft. addition to the existing building down at the bottom of the diagram. Per the comments in my previous post, this addition would trigger sprinklering the existing building, unless that addition is also separated by a fire wall.

I don't know what the existing occupant load is for the existing building, they don't have a record of it. I'm assuming it's over 300 for now. If they do the little addition on the front, we can use a fire wall, but that space would be considered part of the existing building. There would be emergency exits from that space but not entrance. If that added space pushes them over 300 (or even more over 300), would that trigger the existing building?

If I put in a fire wall and have an enclosed conditioned breezeway/concourse with a won door, would they consider the two buildings (old & new) as one as far as occupant load goes? Would I need to keep both buildings under 300 or just the new construction?

Most people don't even know that they've walked through a fire wall going from one "building" to another "building"--for all they really know, it is just one big building. If separated by a fire wall, then the "buildings" on each side are considered separate buildings and the occupant loads are also separate. The limit per the code is 300 occupants per fire area. Fire areas, by definition, are bounded by exterior walls, fire walls, horizontal assemblies, and fire barriers (fire barriers and horizontal assemblies are required to have the fire ratings per Table 707.3.10 for the applicable occupancy group). So each "building" separated by fire walls is considered a separate fire area, each with its own 300-occupant-load threshold for a sprinkler system. As long as the existing building is not increased in area or altered to change the occupant load, and the new buildings do not exceed the threshold area or occupant loads, then none of the buildings would be required to be sprinklered.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Just for discussion what if all the rest rooms and snack bar was only in one building and you had 300 occupants in each building. it would seem the side with the restrooms and snack bar could get overloaded at times.

 

[Meadowbend99]

Great question Rick.

There would be gang toilets in both buildings, but snack bar would remain in existing building (although they would expand it a little bit). New building would contain a lazer tag course (6,000 SF) and remainder would be arcade, gang toilets, storage, offices and party rooms. The arcade in the existing building would relocate to the new building and be replaced with a couple party rooms and office. The plan is to have a pretty good flow between the buildings.

 

[RLGA]

...but snack bar would remain in existing building (although they would expand it a little bit)...The arcade in the existing building would relocate to the new building and be replaced with a couple party rooms and office. The plan is to have a pretty good flow between the buildings.

These are alterations that will affect the occupant load of the existing building. I would analyze the occupant load for the existing conditions based on the current code and then analyze the occupant load based on the proposed alterations. If the occupant load increases, then you're making the building more nonconforming than it was, thus triggering the requirement for a sprinkler system.

Just for discussion what if all the rest rooms and snack bar was only in one building and you had 300 occupants in each building. it would seem the side with the restrooms and snack bar could get overloaded at times.

The requirements are still based on the calculated occupant loads for each fire area--not what could happen. Every building has the potential to exceed the calculated occupant load in one area or another, and there is no way to really enforce it. Someone would have to be there constantly counting people or they implement some type of access control system that prevents people from entering when the occupant load exceeds the permitted amount--I don't believe anyone is willing to do either.

 

[ADAguy]

Careful with Lazer tag, especially if it has elevated sections. Access can become an issue as can the on deck area.

 

[cda]

Lazer tag can sometimes mean special amusement