• 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.

"Break Room" Occupancy Load Factor

I am in agreement with the 15 sq. ft. per person. A Break Room is not ( typically ) specifically

designed for consumption of food / beverages, unless the plans clearly indicate this use. The room

/ space could be used simply to chill out, ..review documents, ..watch tv ( if available ), etc.

Break Room - a space, room or area that is located away from the normal work areas.

.
 
globe trekker said:
I am in agreement with the 15 sq. ft. per person. A Break Room is not ( typically ) specificallydesigned for consumption of food / beverages, unless the plans clearly indicate this use. The room

/ space could be used simply to chill out, ..review documents, ..watch tv ( if available ), etc.

Break Room - a space, room or area that is located away from the normal work areas.

.
Click to expand...
Your right the space can be used for anything. Next door in P&Z every Tuesday morning at 9am they use their break room as a conference room. The net sq. footage of their floor space is 126@15=8.4 occ load, in reality the space holds about 6 at the table and there is enough room for four or five more standing.
 
The plans examiner needs to review the plans in order to determine the use of the space is correctly identified on the plans. The majority of the break rooms that I review are not much larger than 140 sq. ft. what I would identify as similar to most peoples home kitchen without the dining area. 15 sq. ft. per occupant is not used. On the occasional break room dining area combined than the use of 15 per is in accordance with the code.
 
Chapter 10 is specific to use of the space..... Chapter 3 does not have any bearing.... Even if it is an accessory tot he primary occupancy, the OL is still based on the use of the space.

One of the big issues that we have come across if the failure for ICC to recognize transitional Occupant Loads - i.e. church

Even if the same people are in Sunday School and then visit the santuary afterwards, the MOE has to be designed as if the entire buidling is in use at the same time.
 
Builder Bob said:
Chapter 10 is specific to use of the space..... Chapter 3 does not have any bearing.... Even if it is an accessory tot he primary occupancy, the OL is still based on the use of the space.One of the big issues that we have come across if the failure for ICC to recognize transitional Occupant Loads - i.e. church

Even if the same people are in Sunday School and then visit the santuary afterwards, the MOE has to be designed as if the entire buidling is in use at the same time.
Click to expand...
The IPC is very clear about nonsimultaneous use. The building needs to be designed as though it were full, even if it is only full once in its life time. The IMC is the only place they have given a small degree of leniency by allowing the use of actual loads and that is mainly due to the extremely restrictive outside air requirements they had established. Every engineer worth his salt goes to ASHRAE 62 and knocks the OA requirements down by at least 40-60% on every assembly occupancy.
 
There are churches that have both spaces occupied at the same time. Church service going on the same time Sunday school is going on. Larger Churches have this occurrence all the time on Sunday. So yes you design the building and its occupant load as if all rooms and spaces are occupied at the same time. Worse case scenario.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kilitact said:
And getting even more, seems like a simple determination to make but then look at stairs to an attic.
Click to expand...
You just absolutely have to love this forum it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that a whole bunch of people are out there who like to over analysis things just like me.
 
Had to go to the attic stairs, didn't you kil???

Tables and chairs, 15 sf per person. Chairs only, 7. Standing space, 5. Actual number, just make sure they have enough egress.

In reality, less than 50 not posted and you can't stand there counting heads 24/7.
 
In reality, it's the same people who work in the space that are using the "break room" - whatever they are doing there. 15sf/person works, but I've worked in places where the only time this space was used was when someone was warming up food to take it back to their desk (or the occassional school fundraiser signup sheet was in there). I'm not sure you have to classify it/occupy it any differently than the rest of the building.
 
If the employees are in the "break room", they aren't anywhere else in the building; my biggest concern is if the room is big enough (particularly if there are tables and chairs), that you could have 50 people in there, that there are two exits from the room.
 
What about bring your kid to work day, or intern day, or ... they sell the office to company that has a lot of client meetings and they use the break room (since it’s the biggest room) some times for conference meetings?

Our job is only to look at how the space is labeled, and then determine worse case scenario "function" for that labeled space. Again the code does not allow for nonsimultaneous use. Once you have the design occupant load you provide the required egress from the space and you do a fixture count with the design count unless the actual occupant load is greater. The need to use worse case scenario counts becomes even more important if the sanitary system is on site. It is easy to blow out an on site system with one big occupant load day a year.
 
gbhammer said:
What about bring your kid to work day, or intern day, or ... they sell the office to company that has a lot of client meetings and they use the break room (since it’s the biggest room) some times for conference meetings?Our job is only to look at how the space is labeled, and then determine worse case scenario "function" for that labeled space. Again the code does not allow for nonsimultaneous use. Once you have the design occupant load you provide the required egress from the space and you do a fixture count with the design count unless the actual occupant load is greater. The need to use worse case scenario counts becomes even more important if the sanitary system is on site. It is easy to blow out an on site system with one big occupant load day a year.
Click to expand...
What is your stance on 1004.1.1 for the areas without fixed seating exception allowing the actual number of occupants, although less than calculation, to be used in determining the design occupant load?
 
The exception that is now in the 2009 is a dangerous and slippery path to follow and our code official will only allow it in the extreme and only with a very rigorously documented ‘excuse’. Such as: The reason for a reduced occupant load must be given and the document then must be signed by the property owner, a board of directors (if such exist), in the case of a church the head/s of the order, in the case of a school the school board, and the insurance provider for the structure is also required to sign. Even if the property owner is willing to commit to the documentation our director is not likely to approve the request if she feels that the property is likely to change hands, and the new owners would not be obligated to in any way to use the space with a reduced occupant load.
 
gbhammer said:
The exception that is now in the 2009 is a dangerous and slippery path to follow and our code official will only allow it in the extreme and only with a very rigorously documented ‘excuse’.
Click to expand...
We have used this exception in cases where we have received sufficient documentation (i.e., research, letter of operations, letter of acknowledgement, request for alternative occupant design load, etc.)from an RDP and Owner/Tenant. In these cases, the Certificate of Occupancy is specific to that tenant's use under the alternative loading, and a change of occupancy permit is required prior to another occupancy/tenant occupying the building. I suppose as long as there is a capable system of tracking the occupancy and all parties know what they are doing, then the slope may not be quite so slippery...but I would still tread carefully. ;)

Doesn't the IPC also afford a similar exception for fixture distribution between the sexes? That might be just as slippery of a slope as the IBC if not more. I have seen this used on stadiums, as they want to decrease the number of fixtures for the female toilet rooms. This option usually flies out of the window when I ask them if they plan on having concerts, and whether their statistical data still supports the dis-proportionality they proposed.
 
It is doubtful that this county will ever get a stadium, but that is a great argument to remember for dis-proportionality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top