104.10 Modification

[Keystone]

Who has used this allowance and in what circumstance?

 

[cda]

It is used all the time, plans are not perfect, building is not put together per code, only thing is it is not always documented.

And yes there are times when someone comes to you and says hay I am close, what can you do and some compromise is worked out

104.10 Modifications. Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner's representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Used it under the 2006 codes. 3 story R-2 apartment building 1st floor level apartments units. 2nd & 3rd floors where 2 story apts, living on the second sleeping on the 3rd. Common path of travel from the 3rd flor bedroom to the 2nd floor rated exit enclosure was 81 ft in lieu of the allowed 75 ft, Chances are the funiture layout would have reduced this number but just to CYA the city we required the apartment smoke detectors to be connected into the sprinkler flow switch along with a horn strobe at the top of the stairs outside the bedrooms. We wanted to drive the residents out of the building in the event a sprinkler was activated.

 

[AegisFPE]

We're often able to stay within the alternate means and methods provision. However, that requires the material or method to at least be "equivalent" to the protection prescribed by the code.

When the protection prescribed by the code cannot be achieved, we develop a plan that satisfies the intent of the code. In such cases the design approach cannot be said to be equivalent to the prescribed provision, but can be considered to provide the intended level of protection.

 

[cda]

We're often able to stay within the alternate means and methods provision. However, that requires the material or method to at least be "equivalent" to the protection prescribed by the code.When the protection prescribed by the code cannot be achieved, we develop a plan that satisfies the intent of the code. In such cases the design approach cannot be said to be equivalent to the prescribed provision, but can be considered to provide the intended level of protection.

so a modification???

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

We typically use the alternative code section in the 2006. Documenting the impracticality is often difficult and more subjective than we would prefer. If an alternative design or modification is required and it affects the MOE, we will require an RDP written proposal and have them specifically site alternative life safety codes that substantiate their position. We do this in part, because, regardless what we approve, it still has to be approved by the State Fire Marshall's Office under independent review for compliance with the 2000 NFPA life safety codes, which usually makes 104.10 & 11 a moot point.

 

[Coug Dad]

Its use should be accepted more by the AHJ's. JMHO. PBD raises a good point when different AHJ's over a building adopt and enforce different codes. However, both IBC and NFPA have the same code alternate provision.

 

[rshuey]

PA threw out Chapter 1 of the IBC. The UCC replaced it.

 

[steveray]

Done all the time in CT...but has to be done by the State Building Inspector and/or State FM

 

[Keystone]

rshuey - yeah no IBC admin.

Papio Bldg Dept - like that method better than IBC

Appreciate all other responses, sheds light on the subject.

 

[FM William Burns]

The Life Safety Code deals with it similar as follows from the 2000 edition and remains consistent through the new 2015

NFPA 101, 2000

4.6.1.3

Where it is evident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided, any requirement shall be permitted to be modified if its application would be hazardous under normal occupancy conditions in the judgment of the authority having jurisdiction.

4.6.3* Modification of Requirements for Existing Buildings.Where it is evident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided, the requirements for existing buildings shall be permitted to be modified if their application would be impractical in the judgment of the authority having jurisdiction.

1.5.1*

Nothing in this Code is intended to prevent the use of systems, methods, or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by this Code. Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency. The system, method, or device shall be approved for the intended purpose by the authority having jurisdiction.

The specific sections for modifications were just moved out of Chapter 1 to the General sections of Chapter 4 with the equivalency criteria remaining in the administrative chapter.

ops

Sorry.....see that CD mentioned it in post #7.....oh well those interested can see the text now anyway and we have used it at times as necessary!

 

[righter101]

I use it on occasion, as the deputy building official for our jurisdiction. Stairs that are not wide enough, energy code deficencies from windows with U values that are too high, minimum room size (allowing 6'10" on a 500 square foot cabit), 34.5" landings, things of that nature.

I keep a log of all the modifications I have granted. If you want to read some of them, send me a PM and I can email them to you. I generally do a "problem", "discussion", "decision" method to my letters. Note, our jurisdiction is 90+ % residential work.

 

[peach]

The modification is a dangerous tool; too many jurisdictions use it too frequently and it suddenly becomes an unofficial local code change.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

When we adopted our codes we also made a list of modifications to those codes in the adoption process. When we use the alternative design or modification sections we typically hold that as an example to be reviewed annually when we discuss official code adoptions, modifications and upgrades. I would agree modifications can be dangerous when used without having an understanding of the codes and their effect on life safety. In addition, unofficial policies make it difficult for RDP's and contractors to perform design work effectively and consistently, and should be, in my opinion made public either as an adopted code modification or code interpretation.