• 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.

Conflict between codes RE: occupant load

H

Hank Scorpio

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
3
Location
Midwest
Curious on how other jurisdictions handle this scenario. We enforce I-codes but also must enforce NFPA from state level. There is some disagreement on how the "most restrictive" code is applied.

Lets say we have an assembly occupancy. NFPA calculated occupant load is 110. Since it is under the 300 requirement for sprinklers, none required. IBC calculated occupant load is 99. Since it is under the 100 requirement for sprinklers, none required. One person is saying that is not correct and you would have to apply the NFPA calculated occupant load of 110 to the IBC requirement of 100 and therefore sprinkle the building.

I disagree.

Thoughts?
 
Hi Hank

I believe it is asinine to use the occupant load calculation from one code to require fire protection methods from another code. Pick one or the other. My $.02
 
Agree with Plumb-bob. I'd run a code analysis via both codes, separately. So long as each code analysis looks clear, I'd be GTG.
 
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how an AHJ can enforce 2 different codes simultaneously. I understand that one code may reference another, but to use 2 codes concurrently? Why? How?
 
Plumb-bob said:
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how an AHJ can enforce 2 different codes simultaneously. I understand that one code may reference another, but to use 2 codes concurrently? Why? How?
Click to expand...
Happens usually when there is a special occupancy that has oversight/permitting from multiple agencies.

For myself, I see this in hospitals. Local AHJ adopts and follows I-Codes; however, State Dept. of Health uses NFPA 101 and has oversight/permitting for hospitals and similar.

That said, on the AHJ level we would only review to the I-Codes. The plans would typically include a code analysis for the IBC and NFPA 101 on separate sheets and each agency would review their respective portion. In order for permit to be released, local AHJ has to have Dept. of Health approval.
 
classicT said:
For myself, I see this in hospitals. Local AHJ adopts and follows I-Codes; however, State Dept. of Health uses NFPA 101 and has oversight/permitting for hospitals and similar.
Click to expand...
Same here except they are under NFPA LSC 2012 edition. I will give them credit for listening to a different code and sometimes letting the IBC or IFC (2021 editions) be the governing code in lieu of the strict application of the outdated LSC 101 that they have to work with.
 
I would think at a state adoption level it would be either IBC or NFPA and I'd go with adopted powers. Also if you're going with the most restrictive scenario in this case it would be the IBC which is limiting occupant load to a lower number than the NFPA with sprinklering being a completely different issue
 
classicT said:
Happens usually when there is a special occupancy that has oversight/permitting from multiple agencies.

For myself, I see this in hospitals. Local AHJ adopts and follows I-Codes; however, State Dept. of Health uses NFPA 101 and has oversight/permitting for hospitals and similar.

That said, on the AHJ level we would only review to the I-Codes. The plans would typically include a code analysis for the IBC and NFPA 101 on separate sheets and each agency would review their respective portion. In order for permit to be released, local AHJ has to have Dept. of Health approval.
Click to expand...
Same scenario for me. I previously worked for a state health department and we used NFPA, but local agencies used a mix of ICC and SBCCI. It was ugly at times for reasons just like the OP. "Most restrictive" doesn't always clear it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top