1991 Uniform Building Code Occupancy Classification

[redbird11]

I have an existing manufacturing/office building project last renovated under the 1991 Uniform Building Code. At that time the occupancy for manufacturing fell under Business, Division 2.

Now under the 2012 IEBC we will be doing a Level 2 Alteration. My understanding is that existing construction can be left as-is if it's not unsafe, but new work should comply with the 2012 IBC.

So under the 2012 IBC, manufacturing would now be a Factory occupancy, F-1.

Do I follow the requirements for Factory occupancy or Business occupancy for the new work?

 

[classicT]

You will use the current classification. See IEBC Section 302.5 (below).

302.5 Occupancy and Use
When determining the appropriate application of the referenced sections of this code, the occupancy and use of a building shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the International Building Code.​

 

[ADAguy]

I have an existing manufacturing/office building project last renovated under the 1991 Uniform Building Code. At that time the occupancy for manufacturing fell under Business, Division 2.

Now under the 2012 IEBC we will be doing a Level 2 Alteration. My understanding is that existing construction can be left as-is if it's not unsafe, but new work should comply with the 2012 IBC.

So under the 2012 IBC, manufacturing would now be a Factory occupancy, F-1.

Do I follow the requirements for Factory occupancy or Business occupancy for the new work?

I the building ADA compliant?

 

[redbird11]

It was checked for ADA compliance and the results were very good with the exception of a few ramps we want to demolish anyway.

The state this project is in adopted the 2012 IBC with modifications. No adoption of the IEBC, which I believe changes to be adopted by reference in the 2015 IBC. So for 2012 Chapter 34 - Existing Structures is modified with this language -

"Any building or structure lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of any rule of the commission for new construction may have its existing use or occupancy continued without having to be altered to comply with such a rule" Furthermore it contains a chart showing that if prior to 1998 the occupancy was B-2, and then in 1998 would become F-1, it can remain Business.

Then returning to Chapter 34 -

Additions to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. Alterations to the existing building or structure shall be made to ensure that the existing building or structure together with the addition are no less conforming with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure prior to the additions. An existing building together with the additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of Chapter 5.

The existing Type II-N construction under the 1991 UBC shows that all components are non-combustible, but none are rated. It is fully sprinklered so unlimited area is allowed in 1991. However, under the 2012 IBC 0 rating, non-combustible would be II-B and the allowable increases do not get me to a number that covers the existing area.

Then my next thought is do I need to think of the addition as a separate building and have a firewall between the two?

 

[Enri Code]

It was checked for ADA compliance and the results were very good with the exception of a few ramps we want to demolish anyway.

The state this project is in adopted the 2012 IBC with modifications. No adoption of the IEBC, which I believe changes to be adopted by reference in the 2015 IBC. So for 2012 Chapter 34 - Existing Structures is modified with this language -

"Any building or structure lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of any rule of the commission for new construction may have its existing use or occupancy continued without having to be altered to comply with such a rule" Furthermore it contains a chart showing that if prior to 1998 the occupancy was B-2, and then in 1998 would become F-1, it can remain Business.

Then returning to Chapter 34 -

Additions to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. Alterations to the existing building or structure shall be made to ensure that the existing building or structure together with the addition are no less conforming with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure prior to the additions. An existing building together with the additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of Chapter 5.

The existing Type II-N construction under the 1991 UBC shows that all components are non-combustible, but none are rated. It is fully sprinklered so unlimited area is allowed in 1991. However, under the 2012 IBC 0 rating, non-combustible would be II-B and the allowable increases do not get me to a number that covers the existing area.

Then my next thought is do I need to think of the addition as a separate building and have a firewall between the two?

I think your instincts based on the current conditions and facts are already telling you that treating the new addition separate would be best and I would agree with that approach. There's just seems to be a lot of headache of trying to mash the older with the newer code.

I'd also prefer as much as possible to see if all of the building can just be considered as one under the newer code. I understand the dilemma you have with the area limitation. Maybe look at Chapter 506 and see if you can't resolve the area limitation with the building area modifications calculations or other provisions from there if you haven't already. Depending on how the building is configured and situated, its frontage and sprinklers may make it possible to get within an allowable area.