2012 IBC Section 3404.1 and Sprinklers

[TrishB]

I have a project whereby an existing 4 unit apartment building (not sprinklered) is going to do an extensive remodel (bringing the entire building to studs and removing all exterior wall coverings) ((oh and this building is 4" from the adjacent property line))

3404.1 says basically unless excepted elsewhere in this section, alterations shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure prior to the alteration".

1. I'm having difficulty with the bold section above. Does this mean it has to comply with provisions for new construction or not? To me, it reads that it needs to comply with new but not beyond that?

2. I can't find any exception to waive the sprinklers that are required by section 903.2.8.

Due to proximity to the property line and the fact that this is a project involving reconstruction of over 50% of the building, my gut (and from what I'm thinking I'm getting out of Chapter 34) is to require one hour walls (with appropriate opening limitations/protection) on the wall 4" from the property line and sprinklers. I want to make sure that I'm not missing some exceptions or other paths they can take though. I know they can use the IEBC, but not sure that will help in this case?

 

[mtlogcabin]

I know they can use the IEBC, but not sure that will help in this case?

The IEBC should get you out of the sprinkler requirements.

No corridors no sprinklers

3 stories or less no sprinklers

804.2.2 Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2.

In buildings with occupancies in Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2, work areas that have exits or corridors shared by more than one tenant or that have exits or corridors serving an occupant load greater than 30 shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection where all of the following conditions occur:

1. The work area is required to be provided with automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with the International Building Code as applicable to new construction; and

2. The work area exceeds 50 percent of the floor area.

Exceptions:



1. Work areas in Group R occupancies three stories or less in height.

2. If the building does not have sufficient municipal water supply for design of a fire sprinkler system available to the floor without installation of a new fire pump, work areas shall be protected by an automatic smoke detection system throughout all occupiable spaces other than sleeping units or individual dwelling units that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Sections 907.4, 907.5 and 907.6 of the International Building Code.

 

[Builder Bob]

Alterations include renovations, which implies that something is changed in the structure. For example, the removal, rearrangement or replacement of partition walls in an office building is an alteration because, in part, of possible impact on the means of egress, fire resistance or other life safety features of the building. Conversely, the replacement of damaged trim pieces on a door frame is considered a repair, not an alteration.

Alterations are to conform to the requirements for a new structure. For example, consider the corridor of an office building that is to be extended 18 feet (5486 mm), as shown in Figure 3404.1. The existing office building has no sprinkler system (and none is proposed), so the corridor extension walls and doors are to be fire-resistance rated in accordance with Section 1018. This is applicable even if, for some reason, the walls and doors of the existing corridor system are not fire-resistance-rated construction.

This section also indicates that unaltered portions of a structure are not required to comply with code provisions for new construction. However, see also Section 3411, which requires areas outside of the alteration area to be revised in order to provide an accessible route. All requirements applicable to existing, unaltered areas are contained in the code (see Sections 102.6 and 115) or the IPMC and the IFC.

The exceptions address issues that arise with stairways. While not specifically addressed, ramps may have similar concerns. In accordance with Exception 1, if an existing stairway was built with a steeper rise/run ratio than permitted in the current code, the stairway can be replaced with the existing configuration. Enlarging the opening to achieve the current rise/run ratio and headroom would be considered technically infeasible. The principle is that not allowing for this option could result in stairways that were not maintained because they could not be brought up to current codes.

Exception 2 deals with an allowance to reduce or bend handrail extensions when providing those extensions could become a protruding object for circulation or an obstruction for the means of egress. Section 1012.6 requires the handrail extensions to continue in the direction of the stairway run. An example would be where stairways had landings that were part of a corridor.

Commentary for your enjoyment.

 

[cda]

I have a project whereby an existing 4 unit apartment building (not sprinklered) is going to do an extensive remodel (bringing the entire building to studs and removing all exterior wall coverings) ((oh and this building is 4" from the adjacent property line))3404.1 says basically unless excepted elsewhere in this section, alterations shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure prior to the alteration".

1. I'm having difficulty with the bold section above. Does this mean it has to comply with provisions for new construction or not? To me, it reads that it needs to comply with new but not beyond that?

2. I can't find any exception to waive the sprinklers that are required by section 903.2.8.

Due to proximity to the property line and the fact that this is a project involving reconstruction of over 50% of the building, my gut (and from what I'm thinking I'm getting out of Chapter 34) is to require one hour walls (with appropriate opening limitations/protection) on the wall 4" from the property line and sprinklers. I want to make sure that I'm not missing some exceptions or other paths they can take though. I know they can use the IEBC, but not sure that will help in this case?

Dang you are good, only two questions a year!!!

 

[TrishB]

Dang you are good, only two questions a year!!!

No..just a little shy Thanks for all the feedback and the commentary Builder Bob!

 

[RLGA]

This is somewhat confusing, as you have pointed out, but when you begin to understand its intent, the application of it becomes very clear. For example, you state that the alteration is taking the building down to its studs, so I assume there is no reconfiguration of space. With this assumption in mind, all the materials that are to replace what was removed are required to comply with the code. Thus, if some walls would be required under the current code to have a fire-resistance rating, then they must comply. However, if they are walls for a corridor that doesn't comply with current egress width requirements, then the studs, which are remaining, are not required to be moved to comply with the current egress width.

Once you touch something in an alteration project, you have to consider the "domino effect" of the work. For example, if you move a wall in a building, there may be a change in the occupant loads of the effected spaces, which has an effect on the egress system serving those spaces and the plumbing fixture count based on the occupant load. Those changes will have an effect on other spaces, that have an effect on the egress serving those spaces, etc. etc. etc. Even if the egress system and plumbing fixture count was noncompliant to begin with, the fact that space was altered could make the condition worse, which is the intent of this section. On the other hand, if the space that is reduced is an assembly occupancy and the adjacent enlarged space is an office, the occupant load is likely reduced and the "domino effect" will be minor. If the existing egress system and plumbing fixture counts were noncompliant initially and the occupant load will be reduced by the alteration, then the existing noncompliant egress system and fixture counts can remain, since the alteration did not make the building "less complying" with the code.

 

[cda]

No..just a little shy Thanks for all the feedback and the commentary Builder Bob!

There are only a couple you have to watch out for, on the forum.

Ask away and also throw in your eight cents.