joetheinspector
REGISTERED
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 152
Can construction in an existing building be designed to the IBC
Or
Does it have to be designed to the IEBC
Or
Does it have to be designed to the IEBC
-
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.
Construction in an existing building designed to the IBC
- Thread starter joetheinspector
- Start date
Mac
Gold Member
Re: Construction in an existing building designed to the IBC
I believe the IEBC provides a somewhat 'lesser standard' that may be used in existing buildings. Permit applicants may opt to use the more stringent Biulding Code for an alteration/renovation project, as has happened here.
Check IEBC 101.2 "Scope" for details.
I believe the IEBC provides a somewhat 'lesser standard' that may be used in existing buildings. Permit applicants may opt to use the more stringent Biulding Code for an alteration/renovation project, as has happened here.
Check IEBC 101.2 "Scope" for details.
JBI
REGISTERED
Re: Construction in an existing building designed to the IBC
If the building has never been occupied;
101.4.1 Buildings not previously occupied.
A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its intended purpose in accordance with the laws in existence at the time of its completion shall comply with the provisions of the International Building Code or International Residential Code, as applicable, for new construction or with any current permit for such occupancy.
If it has, I see no reason the current IBC couldn't be used, although as Mac points out it might be cheaper or easier to comply with the EBC. The Res Code specifically defaults to the IBC for non-prescriptive elements, but I don't find similar language in Chapter 1 of the EBC. There are provisions for new elements in existing buildings to meet IBC, but no specific default to IBC...
Now if you were in the Land of JAR & RJJ, you could choose between the EBC and Chapter 34 of the IBC - don't know why they did it that way...
If the building has never been occupied;
101.4.1 Buildings not previously occupied.
A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its intended purpose in accordance with the laws in existence at the time of its completion shall comply with the provisions of the International Building Code or International Residential Code, as applicable, for new construction or with any current permit for such occupancy.
If it has, I see no reason the current IBC couldn't be used, although as Mac points out it might be cheaper or easier to comply with the EBC. The Res Code specifically defaults to the IBC for non-prescriptive elements, but I don't find similar language in Chapter 1 of the EBC. There are provisions for new elements in existing buildings to meet IBC, but no specific default to IBC...
Now if you were in the Land of JAR & RJJ, you could choose between the EBC and Chapter 34 of the IBC - don't know why they did it that way...