Code analysis for alterations

[Sifu]

Common issue, seeking opinions.

When plans for an alteration to a tenant space provide a code analysis based on the original construction of the tenant space based on adopted code at the time, along with the correct data at the time do you require the code analysis for the altered space to reflect the current code? For example, the building area and code references for the space are all code compliant to the space at the time of original construction, and are still compliant to the current code, just referencing the old code and data.

As far as allowable area it meets code (then and now) so my mandate of verification of compliance is satisfied, but is it appropriate to have them update the code analysis, or is it more appropriate to leave the code analysis as it was since no alterations have been made with respect the building area? The portion below is based on the 2012 IBC. The data today would look different, but provide the same result.

 

[steveray]

I don't look for building area unless it is a change of use/ occupancy or some other thing that might make me care....

 

[Sifu]

I don't look for building area unless it is a change of use/ occupancy or some other thing that might make me care....

That is where I am. If they made alterations that affect the code analysis I expect to see a current code analysis for the affected portions, otherwise I tend to think it is more appropriate to use the same information on which the original approval is based. I would love to believe the DP's critically think this out, but most of the time (as in this case) they just copy the original page and submit it as new. Happy to leave it alone if it does not affect or be affected by the alterations.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

When plans for an alteration to a tenant space provide a code analysis based on the original construction of the tenant space based on adopted code at the time, along with the correct data at the time do you require the code analysis for the altered space to reflect the current code? For example, the building area and code references for the space are all code compliant to the space at the time of original construction, and are still compliant to the current code, just referencing the old code and data.

No. My state has adopted the IEBC, with few amendments other than mucking around in Chapter 1. We often see plans for alterations come in with an extensive code data block setting out all the building height and area parameters (usually under the current IBC, even though here the existing buildings were mostly built under BOCA, or decades before we had any building code) and my immediate reaction is to wonder why they bothered. The IEBC doesn't ask for that information, doesn't require that information, and I basically ignore it. I look for the total building area and the area affected by the alteration, and I look for whether they're using the Prescriptive Method, the Work Area Method, or the Performance Method (usually they don't have any idea what that even means).

Once the compliance method has been established, I look at what the IEBC requires under that method (as well as requirements pertaining to all methods), and I open the IBC only when the IEBC sends me there.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I don't look for building area unless it is a change of use/ occupancy or some other thing that might make me care....

A change of use shouldn't result in a change to the building area. If there's an increase in the building area, it's an addition -- which then invokes additional requirements beyond those for alterations.

If a change of use/occupancy would put the building into a smaller allowable area classification for the building, then it's a matter requiring investigation.

 

[steveray]

A change of use shouldn't result in a change to the building area. If there's an increase in the building area, it's an addition -- which then invokes additional requirements beyond those for alterations.

If a change of use/occupancy would put the building into a smaller allowable area classification for the building, then it's a matter requiring investigation.

A change of occupancy could put the building over area or height....As it could need to comply "AS new"
1011.6.1 Height and Area for Change to a Higher-Hazard Category​

Where a change of occupancy classification is made to a higher-hazard category as shown in Table 1011.6, heights and areas of buildings and structures shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the International Building Code for the new occupancy classification.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

A change of occupancy could put the building over area or height....As it could need to comply "AS new"​

1011.6.1 Height and Area for Change to a Higher-Hazard Category​

Where a change of occupancy classification is made to a higher-hazard category as shown in Table 1011.6, heights and areas of buildings and structures shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the International Building Code for the new occupancy classification.

That was implied in my last sentence/paragraph, but I didn't spell it out completely.

 

[steveray]

That was implied in my last sentence/paragraph, but I didn't spell it out completely.

I saw "smaller" and didn't understand....My bad...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I saw "smaller" and didn't understand....My bad...

No, my bad -- I omitted height as a related consideration.

It comes down to the underlying premise of the IEBC -- try to allow existing buildings to remain in use, just don't make them any less safe than they are now.