2009 IBC section 3412

[BSSTG]

Greetings,

I have avoided reading this section for some time. It's a bunch of work. However, I have some questions regarding it and hopefully you folks can shed some light on it.

?1 Gererally speaking, how does this compare with the requirements of NFPA 101?

?2 When the final scores are tallied per the 3412.7, if the score is less than zero and the building is noncompliant, how do you get it compliant?

?3 I am inclined to tell anyone that wants to utilize section 3412 that they have to have RDP or FPE do the research and fill out the required forms and stamp them for submittal. Would you agree?

?4 Is anyone seeing this section utilized with any regularity? Is anyone seeing it at all?

thanksabunch as always

BS

 

[RLGA]

First, you have to make sure the age of the building is appropriate. Section 3412.2 requires the jurisdiction to set a date to which a building's original construction date is compared to determine whether or not the section can be used. This date is typically set at, or should be set at, the date when a a formal building code was first adopted by the jurisdiction.

Therefore, the section cannot be applied to any existing building.

To date, I haven't used it. I always use the requirements for historic buildings, which is much easier to comply with and doesn't require such a thorough analysis of the existing building.

 

[goodall]

1. I am not familiar enough with NFPA 101 to answer.

2. Adjust the design. If sprinklers were not provided then add them in. I reviewed a couple of buildings that had existing fire walls. The Architects wanted to leave the existing openings unprotected for design purposes. When the Compliance Evaluation failed they added fire doors at the openings. This decreased the compartment size, increased this value and they passed.

3. Yes

4. I see it about 4-6 times a year. I work in a locality with a lot of old buildings. I see the Existing Building Code used more.

I think that Section 3412 is a good tool and really useful in some instances. One thing to be careful of is that some safety parameters have maximum values that you cannot exceed. Building Height, Building Area and Vertical Openings are examples of this. Building Area is the one that I see trip up people. Be careful to check for requirements buried in the section.

 

[cda]

not a 101 person

101 does have a chapter for each use, with a new chapter and an existing chapter

chapter 43 has this break down:

43.1 General

43.1.1 Classification of Rehabilitation Work Categories. Rehabilitation work on existing buildings shall be classified as one of the following work categories:

(1)

Repair

from one existing chapter::::

13.1.1.4 An existing building housing an assembly occupancy established prior to the effective date of this Code shall be permitted to be approved for continued use if it conforms to, or is made to conform to, the provisions of this Code to the extent that, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, reasonable life safety against the hazards of fire, explosion, and panic is provided and maintained.

13.1.1.5 Additions to existing buildings shall conform to the requirements of 4.6.7.

AND:

4.6.7 Building Rehabilitation.

Editions of the Code prior to 2006 required modernizations, renovations, additions, and changes of occupancy to comply with the requirements for new construction. Chapter 43, Building Rehabilitation, was added in 2006. It was written to encourage the adaptive reuse of existing structures. The former requirement that rehabilitation projects must comply with the requirements for new construction is relaxed. Chapter 43 imposes those requirements necessary to achieve the intended level of life safety in lieu of requiring strict compliance with the requirements applicable to new buildings.

The provisions of Chapter 43 are permitted to be used only if the existing building is brought into compliance with the appropriate occupancy chapter requirements applicable to existing occupancies. See 43.1.2.1(1). For example, if an existing business occupancy is to undergo renovation, the provisions of Chapter 43 are permitted to be used only if the existing building is brought into compliance with the requirements of Chapter 39, Existing Business Occupancies. Thus, the existing business occupancy building undergoing the renovation is held, as a starting point, to the same requirements that apply to any other existing business occupancy building. Then, per 43.1.2.1(2), requirements related to the renovation work being undertaken are added.

Some of the occupancy chapters have requirements that supplement those of Chapter 43 and impose the requirements for new construction on existing buildings that are being rehabilitated, including those situations in which the use is changed to increase the occupant load. For example, mercantile occupancies are further subclassified as a Class A, Class B, or Class C mercantile occupancy, based on the floor area used for sales purposes. For the purposes of this example, consider that the rehabilitation project involves an addition to an existing mercantile occupancy. If consideration of the combined space created by the addition and the existing portion of the building results in a change of mercantile occupancy subclassification (e.g., a reclassification from Class C to Class B or from Class B to Class A), the existing portion of the building must also meet the requirements applicable to new construction. See 36.1.1.5.3 and 37.1.1.5.3.

For assembly occupancies, the same concept applies, but its application criteria are specified differently, given that assembly occupancies no longer use the sub-classification scheme of editions earlier than 1997 (i.e., Class A, Class B, and Class C). The existing portion of the assembly occupancy building is required to meet the provisions that apply to new construction under either of the following conditions (see 13.1.1.6):

1.The occupant load of the combined space created by the addition and the existing assembly area increases from less than 500 to more than 500, so as to require a third exit.

2.The occupant load of the combined space created by the addition and the existing assembly area increases from less than 1000 to more than 1000, so as to require a fourth exit.

Chapter 43 addresses change of use or change of occupancy as categories of rehabilitation subject to the requirements of the chapter. In addition, for mercantile occupancies, 36.1.1.6 and 37.1.1.6(2) mandate that a change from Class C to Class A or Class B, or from Class B to Class A, must meet the provisions applicable to new construction.

(2)

Renovation

(3)

Modification

(4)

Reconstruction

(5)

Change of use or occupancy classification

(6)

Addition

 

[Paul Sweet]

I used to do a Chapter 34 analysis under BOCA. Somewhere along the line the scoring got changed so a new building complying with the current code would get a zero. Since there are mandatory minimum scores, old buildings had to prove they are much safer than new buildings, which pretty much made it a lost cause.

I don't think there is any relation between chapter 34 and NFPA 101. A lot of jurisdictions don't recognize NFPA 101, except where the Feds require it for hospitals.

 

[Mech]

When the final scores are tallied per the 3412.7, if the score is less than zero and the building is noncompliant, how do you get it compliant?

My opinion: Make changes (alter the building accordingly) as required to increase individual values from 3412.6. As an example, look at 3412.6.9 Fire alarm systems. Assuming there are no fire alarms (Category a gives a value of -10), installing a system to meet Category b results in a new value of -5. The Fire Safety, Means of Egress, and General Safety has now increased by 5 points. Changes in multiple subsections of 3412.6 may be required to obtain a passing score.

 

[mkjeeves]

"Since there are mandatory minimum scores, old buildings had to prove they are much safer than new buildings, which pretty much made it a lost cause." With all due respect, it's not exactly that simple.

I'm an architect who has used 3412 on several projects in a city full of old buildings, and this statement oversimplifies a bit.

While you DO have to prove that it is safer (not much safer) there are often ways in which old buildings already are inherently safer than a building for a similar use that would be built today: smaller floor areas, numerous large perimeter openings, multiwythe masonry exterior walls (2-hour minimum easily), or even non-combustible construction throughout (speedtile and the like), all help your score. Basically all you are proving is that: A. The building was built before your jurisdiction adopted a building code, and it meets an alternate set of principles that allow for certain shortcomings (lack of sprinklers, for example), by limiting other criteria below what is allowable in new work (smaller floors, shorter travel distances, compartmentalization), and providing more than what is required in others (improved fire alarms, smoke detection, localization of HVAC). Some of these are things we'd already be doing.

My preliminary rule of thumb: if the building is more than 3 stories, a large floorplate, or a "land-locked" structure with little frontage, 3412 will probably not help you.

The places where it has made sense to invest the time and energy in the calculations are: new R-Uses in existing buildings where the New construction-required sprinklering is undesirable or cost-prohibitive. Small footprint buildings with 1 means of egress or a fire escape as a means of egress. It can also permit unseparated mixed uses beyond that of the base IBC, where separation is difficult or undesirable from a preservation standpoint.

One thing a lot of people miss the first time through one of these: The building area value may be no more than half of the mandatory fire safety score. This is the only total that may not exceed a factor of the overall score, but a lot of small area building projects look like they'll work until this limit is applied.

 

[cda]

"Since there are mandatory minimum scores, old buildings had to prove they are much safer than new buildings, which pretty much made it a lost cause." With all due respect, it's not exactly that simple.

I'm an architect who has used 3412 on several projects in a city full of old buildings, and this statement oversimplifies a bit.

While you DO have to prove that it is safer (not much safer) there are often ways in which old buildings already are inherently safer than a building for a similar use that would be built today: smaller floor areas, numerous large perimeter openings, multiwythe masonry exterior walls (2-hour minimum easily), or even non-combustible construction throughout (speedtile and the like), all help your score. Basically all you are proving is that: A. The building was built before your jurisdiction adopted a building code, and it meets an alternate set of principles that allow for certain shortcomings (lack of sprinklers, for example), by limiting other criteria below what is allowable in new work (smaller floors, shorter travel distances, compartmentalization), and providing more than what is required in others (improved fire alarms, smoke detection, localization of HVAC). Some of these are things we'd already be doing.

My preliminary rule of thumb: if the building is more than 3 stories, a large floorplate, or a "land-locked" structure with little frontage, 3412 will probably not help you.

The places where it has made sense to invest the time and energy in the calculations are: new R-Uses in existing buildings where the New construction-required sprinklering is undesirable or cost-prohibitive. Small footprint buildings with 1 means of egress or a fire escape as a means of egress. It can also permit unseparated mixed uses beyond that of the base IBC, where separation is difficult or undesirable from a preservation standpoint.

One thing a lot of people miss the first time through one of these: The building area value may be no more than half of the mandatory fire safety score. This is the only total that may not exceed a factor of the overall score, but a lot of small area building projects look like they'll work until this limit is applied.

Welcome MK!!! Keep on posting please