• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

2015 IEBC 1012.5.1.1

kasa

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
46
There's a building with groups E, B and I4. The E wants to expand into some of the B space. Fully sprinkled, IIB,1-story, I'm using 2015 IBC and 2015 IEBC. In IEBC 1012.5.1.1, they'd meet the 1st and 3rd condition, but I'm not certain I'm understanding the interpretation of #2 to know it's met. If they put a 2hr fire barrier between the new E area and the neighboring uses (here it's remote from the rest of the E, it's 'neighbors' are B), does the old school area need to be evaluated as NS for it's area limitation then? If so, the old E portion is well over, would they need to subdivide it as well? My first thought is that if it's a "Fire Wall Alternative", it's first a fire wall, then, as a separate building, it's ok in area (it's under 14,500 SF) and the old E portion is a 'separate building' and didn't have a change of use, so it (being like 50,000 SF single fire area) is still ok to remain as is. Does condition #2 really intend that there be 2hr fire barriers put in throughout the old part to make it into 14500 SF chunks? And what about the B areas- they'd need separated out the same also? It would seem then that the 'alternative' isn't much help, and a full fire wall instead would be best.
 
I'm using 2015 IBC and 2015 IEBC
Pick one code or the other. If you use the IEBC it gives you three options to choose from and it will direct you to the IBC when required. Do not jump to the other methods unless directed to by the method you have selected to use.

301.3.1 Prescriptive compliance method.
Alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 5 of this code in buildings complying with the International Fire Code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

301.3.2 Work area compliance method.
Alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with the applicable requirements of Chapters 6 through 12 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

301.3.3 Performance compliance method.
Alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 13 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.
 
One thing about #2 is that you cannot use the sprinkler increase, but you can use the frontage increase. Although that will not help your specific situation, it could help other projects that are marginally over the Table 506.2 nonsprinklered thresholds.

The IEBC only applies to areas that are affected by the work area. If the Group E portion originally exceeds the nonsprinklered allowable area, then this section would not apply if you are not doing any work within the Group E portion of the building (i.e., it is grandfathered in).

The IEBC states that work cannot make the project any less conforming to the current building code than it was prior to the alteration. If you were to reduce the Group E portion, even though the remaining area would still exceed the nonsprinklered allowable area, that portion would still not need to be divided since the original area was grandfathered in, and the new work did not make the Group E portion less compliant with the code.*

However, since you are expanding an already non-compliant situation, then the entire Group E portion would need to be made compliant with IEBC Section 1012.5.1.1 or include a fire wall. As a single-story building, I agree that including a fire wall, although difficult within an existing structure, might be the lower cost alternative.

* Sometimes this does not work because some jurisdictions may make the hard line interpretation that once you touch it the work must be compliant--even if the work is making the building less non-compliant. I had an unsprinklered project (Group A-2) where the occupant load was over 100. The alterations that were proposed would have reduced the occupant load, but it would still be over 100. The building official still required the addition of sprinklers because the occupant load was over 100. The adopted IEBC (2006) stated at the time that an alteration cannot "cause the existing building...to be in violation" of the IBC. The alteration did not cause the violation--the violation pre-existed the alteration. Yet, the B.O. still made the owner install sprinklers. Unfortunately, the current IEBC language is less specific by stating the alteration cannot make the building "less complying with the provisions" of the IBC.
 
Pick one code or the other. If you use the IEBC it gives you three options to choose from and it will direct you to the IBC when required. Do not jump to the other methods unless directed to by the method you have selected to use.

301.3.1 Prescriptive compliance method.
Alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 5 of this code in buildings complying with the International Fire Code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

301.3.2 Work area compliance method.
Alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with the applicable requirements of Chapters 6 through 12 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

301.3.3 Performance compliance method.
Alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 13 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.
My jurisdiction doesn't allow the prescriptive method. I think the performance method is now chp 14 in the 2015, and it is allowed, but I'm just trying to understand the work area method.
 
@RLGA how is the frontage increase used here? The non-sprinkled area limit is 14500 SF for group E, so would that mean it'd just need to have 2hr fire barriers creating areas of under 25375 SF (that's 1.75 times 14500, they have the entire frontage increase on the site) in the old E portion?
 
@RLGA how is the frontage increase used here? The non-sprinkled area limit is 14500 SF for group E, so would that mean it'd just need to have 2hr fire barriers creating areas of under 25375 SF (that's 1.75 times 14500, they have the entire frontage increase on the site) in the old E portion?
Yes.
 
My jurisdiction doesn't allow the prescriptive method. I think the performance method is now chp 14 in the 2015, and it is allowed, but I'm just trying to understand the work area method.
You wouldn't want to use prescriptive for a change of use anyway....

407.1 Conformance. No change shall be made in the use or
occupancy of any building unless such building is made to
comply with the requirements of the International Building
Code for the use or occupancy.
 
Top