• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

2015 IEBC - Work Areas vs. Prescriptive

S

Sketch44

REGISTERED
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
5
Location
Denver
Hey Everyone!

..haven't been here in a while but I have entered the IEBC world as our jurisdiction has recently adopted it and it is stumping me a bit.

1. The basic question is what is the fundamental difference between using Ch. 4 Prescriptive vs. Ch. 5 - 13 which are based on Work Areas. (if there is a great article link you can shoot me that would be fantastic)

2. Does the Work Areas method allow you to simply Repair (via Ch. 6) one area while doing ?

3. If I'm working on a Primary Function does that mean that all supporting areas are bound by that level of alteration because they are part of the Accessible Path definition?

Example: I have a bank that is 4000 sf built in 2000 and we are doing about 330k in finish upgrades and we are moving a couple of partition walls. (Level 1 and Level 2 alterations. which would fall under Ch. 7 and Ch.8 )

In the bathrooms we are only doing paint and fixing the vanity. (Ch. 6 Repair level)

The bathrooms comply with ANSI and ADA. Except the door swings into the 60" turning radius. If I swing the door out, now my approach is busted because my hall way is 51" wide. In order to widen it....I have to move the main electrical panel.

My code official is stating that I must be spending 66K (20% of the project) on accessibility upgrades at a minimum to be able to not do a particular upgrade.

(My understanding of ADA is that it does not state that the turning radius can't overlap the door swing so I don't have a federal issue at time of original construction. If I do I would just advise the owner to fix it regardless of anything else)
 
Here are my responses to your three questions:
  1. I have an article, but it is a little dated since it was before they really established the three methods. Here's the article: http://specsandcodes.com/articles/code_corner/The Code Corner No. 21 - Existing Buildings.pdf.
  2. "[W]hile doing" what? I assume you meant other areas of work. In that case, yes--each area of work is classified individually.
  3. No. The path to and from the alternation must be maintained and be accessible, but is not considered part of the alteration area unless specific work is performed in those areas to make it accessible.
Doors can swing into the 60-inch turning radius. If it is a single-user restroom, then you must provide a 30x48-inch clear floor space beyond the door swing.
 
Ron,

thank you for your reply! I will read the article.

The bathroom in question has 2 women's Water closets and I need both (the code official also doesn't seem to think that Business occupancies should have plumbing calculated by 100/sf gross and is making me break out the 300 sf employee lounge and the waiting line for the tellers as separate A occupancies.....)
 
just read the article and it seems to imply one construction project can have multiple classifications but about as clear as the code....aka ...not very
 
I had building owners take advantage of the work area method by doing one area at a time to rehab the whole building.
But the biggest problem I have with the IEBC is the plans not specifying the method they are using. I always default to the Prescriptive method. Sometimes I suggest a different method but I don't like doing that.
 
When doing multiple areas in the same building/site during a 3 year period they are added together and you may lose your 20%.
If flooring is being replaced it counts as an accessible item (Ch 3).
Door swing can overhang up to 12" of the 60" dia.
Owner still has an ADA barrier removal requirement separate from code he must comply with if he hasn't done so.
 
I think the substantial stuff is the only one with a "time frame" unless there is a local amendment...

[BS] SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL ALTERATION.
An alteration in which the gravity load-carrying structural
elements altered within a 5-year period support more than 30
percent of the total floor and roof area of the building or
structure. The areas to be counted toward the 30 percent shall
include mezzanines, penthouses, and in-filled courts and
shafts tributary to the altered structural elements.
 
Was able to get the AHJ to accept that the bathrooms were "Repair" area per IEBC. Sent him all of the below but deleted the second portion of the argument in my formal response as he accepted the "Repair" argument making the rest unnecessary.


"Thank you for asking us which approach we are taking to the IEBC.

We are employing the Classification of Work outlined in IEBC Ch. 5-13

Per the definition of Work Area in Ch. 2 the Restrooms are not part of a portion of the building that is being reconfigured and thus are not in the Work Area subject to Ch. 7 or Ch. 8 which are Level 1 and Level 2 altered spaces.

The Restrooms are only undergoing Repairs, Per IEBC Section 605 and thus only need to maintain the existing level of accessibility.

(then showed him a diagram of the space)

  1. EXISTING LEVEL OF ACCESSIBILITY: IEBC Section 301.1 - Exception states “Alterations complying with the laws in existence at the time the building or the affected portion of the building was built shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code unless the building is undergoing more than limited structural alteration as defined in Section 907.4.4.”
    1. The restrooms were built in 1996 and Denver was under Uniform Building Code, 1994. Per UBC 1994 Section 1105 and 1106.11.2 the turning space may overlap the door swing by 12”.

      In Accordance with the 12” overlap rule we will insure that the Toilet Partition is ceiling hung to allow a 9” tall by 6” deep toe clearance. See 12” and 6” diagrammatic circles which show the overlaps we propose meet the 1994 UBC.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top