Another IEBC application question

[Sifu]

I have a proposed renovation to a building. The architect does not reference or appear to use any provision of the IEBC (this would be a level 3). The MEP engineer is using the IEBC to provide a greatly reduced OA system. This is not a change of occupancy. Can only certain parts of the proposed design use the IEBC and others use the IBC. I don't see anything that would prohibit this but it seems like I was instructed by someone this was not acceptable.

 

[steveray]

If everything else is "as new" then that should work.....But level 3 work would likely drive egress upgrades and existing shaft protection and the typical accessibility upgrades, etc....

 

[RLGA]

If the building complies with the IBC, then there should be no issues. The IEBC allows some relaxation of the requirements, but if the architect can make the building fully comply with the IBC, then why hold them back?

 

[Sifu]

The DP is in compliance with the IBC for everything as far as I can tell, and doesn't reference the IEBC. The only sore spot is the reduced outside air requirements per IEBC 808.2. This is an existing day-care facility, being remodeled. It would be a level 3 alteration if using the IEBC but either way it meets those requirements or the IBC. But apparently they are re-using the existing RTU's and even though a new installation would require significantly more O/A, this provision allows them a reduced people outdoor rate and eliminates the area outdoor rate.

 

[steveray]

So it meets all accessibility requirements and today's structural requirements? Wind, snow, seismic? You can still get to existing in the IECC so that might work....Electrical? Any NM above the dropped ceiling?

 

[Sifu]

The general question is whether one DP (architect) can use the IBC for design and another (MEP engineer) can use the IEBC.

 

[RLGA]

I would say yes.

 

[jj1289]

I would disagree on using the IEBC. If the Architect has based their design on the IBC then the other DP's have to follow suit. Chapter 28 of the IBC sends you to the IMC, not the IEBC

 

[steveray]

[A] 101.4.7 Existing buildings. The provisions of the International Existing Building Code shall apply to matters governing the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation of existing buildings.

[A] 101.4.2 Mechanical. The provisions of the International Mechanical Code shall apply to the installation, alterations, repairs and replacement of mechanical systems, including equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and/or appurtenances, including ventilating, heating, cooling, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems, incinerators
and other energy-related systems.

Certainly could use some clarifying....Bottom line is the architect is wrong and the whole building is not likely to meet new IBC and all of the other new codes ....

 

[steveray]

So you are talking about this section?

809.1 Reconfigured or converted spaces. All reconfigured
spaces intended for occupancy and all spaces converted to
habitable or occupiable space in any work area shall be provided
with natural or mechanical ventilation in accordance
with the International Mechanical Code.
Exception: Existing mechanical ventilation systems shall
comply with the requirements of Section 809.2.

809.2 Altered existing systems. In mechanically ventilated
spaces, existing mechanical ventilation systems that are
altered, reconfigured, or extended shall provide not less than
5 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (0.0024 m3/s) per person of outdoor
air and not less than 15 cfm (0.0071 m3/s) of ventilation
air per person; or not less than the amount of ventilation air
determined by the Indoor Air Quality Procedure of ASHRAE
62.

New (replacement) systems comply as new, reconfigured meet the exception....

 

[RLGA]

Just have them list the IEBC along with the other codes and be done with it.

In regard to all things not mechanical or electrical, if the architect decides to comply with the IBC, what is there to stop them? There is nothing in the IEBC that exceeds the IBC, so compliance with the IBC is actually exceeding compliance with the IEBC.

For example, IEBC Section 802.2.1 only requires a 1-hour enclosure for existing vertical openings connecting two or more stories. If they provide a 2-hour enclosure for existing openings that connect more than three stories per the IBC, are they now obligated to comply with everything the IBC requires?

 

[Sifu]

Just have them list the IEBC along with the other codes and be done with it.

In regard to all things not mechanical or electrical, if the architect decides to comply with the IBC, what is there to stop them? There is nothing in the IEBC that exceeds the IBC, so compliance with the IBC is actually exceeding compliance with the IEBC.

I agree, I actually see very few designs in accordance with the IEBC (can you tell??). Most are straight IBC. My question isn't about the IBC reference, it is in the two DP's using different methods. What I found (or didn't find) was there doesn't seem to be anything that would prohibit it. I already asked to clarify it and add the reference.

 

[Sifu]

So you are talking about this section?

809.1 Reconfigured or converted spaces. All reconfigured
spaces intended for occupancy and all spaces converted to
habitable or occupiable space in any work area shall be provided
with natural or mechanical ventilation in accordance
with the International Mechanical Code.
Exception: Existing mechanical ventilation systems shall
comply with the requirements of Section 809.2.

809.2 Altered existing systems. In mechanically ventilated
spaces, existing mechanical ventilation systems that are
altered, reconfigured, or extended shall provide not less than
5 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (0.0024 m3/s) per person of outdoor
air and not less than 15 cfm (0.0071 m3/s) of ventilation
air per person; or not less than the amount of ventilation air
determined by the Indoor Air Quality Procedure of ASHRAE
62.

New (replacement) systems comply as new, reconfigured meet the exception....

Yes, that is the section. It makes a huge difference. Here is the issue: It is an existing day care, with an existing ventilation system that was "approved". Now we get to a remodel and they justifiably think the existing system is ok, but its not. It is a huge difference. That is one thing I have found frustrating about the IEBC. I think it makes an assumption that existing conditions were compliant when the building or systems were installed, not recognizing that something may have been "approved" in error. So in this case, the error just gets kicked down the road. Maybe that is on purpose, and the code figures it will eventually get rectified at a change of occupancy.

 

[Sifu]

There is this, it may be where I remember thinking that it can't be done. In reading it now, I'm not sure it says you can't mix the IEBC with the IBC, just that you can't mix the methods of the IEBC.

501.1.1 Compliance with other methods. Alterations, additions and changes of occupancy to existing
buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions of this chapter or with one of the
methods provided in Section 301.3.

301.3 Alteration, addition or change of occupancy. The alteration, addition or change of occupancy
of all existing buildings shall comply with one of the methods listed in Section 301.3.1, 301.3.2
or 301.3.3 as selected by the applicant. Sections 301.3.1 through 301.3.3 shall not be applied in
combination with each other.

 

[ADAguy]

Aha! and what of the benefit if increased fresh air to the children?
Also helps to limit "virus" accumulation.

 

[Sifu]

That's my point. I guess the benefits to the kiddies don't outweigh the cost. I just can't find a minimum code that makes them revise it.

 

[ADAguy]

That's my point. I guess the benefits to the kiddies don't outweigh the cost. I just can't find a minimum code that makes them revise it.

Maybe state licensing of the facility, do they have minimum requirements?

 

[steveray]

Public health code?

 

[Paul Sweet]

As best as I remember ASHRAE 62.1 came out in the the late 1980s which increased the fresh air requirement from 5 CFM per person to 20. This was mostly due to people in offices having health issues from VOCs in carpet adhesives, paints, formaldehyde in particleboard, and similar items. Most of these irritants have been banned or greatly reduced since then. The 20 CFM per person figure was based on European standards to keep CO2 below 0.1%. At that point some people begin to get groggy and body odors become much more noticable (apparently deoderants weren't widely used in Europe then). The current IMC allows 5 CFM per person for several types of occupancies plus an amount based on area, modified by a factor depending on intake and exhaust grille locations, the phase of the moon, and other things that I can't keep straight.

 

[ADAguy]

As i said, fresh air cures/prevents many things.