• 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.

Defining Work Area

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,777
Location
Not where I really want to be
I am going to start this thread all over again. It was started quite a long time ago and is the 4th most viewed thread in the history of this forum. It was eventually locked due to how far it got off the OP topic and there were some personality issues. The person that posted it hit a home run because it was their first post ever. Here it is to hopefully start a good discussion again. I would rather start new than try to clean up the mess it became.

here's a question we're currently wrestling with in our office - how extensively can the 'work area' be defined? where does it end?

the issue at hand is the sprinkler requirements for residential multi-family buildings undergoing Level 2 Alterations as defined by IEBC 2009.

the specific case is this - a three family structure (typical triple-decker, three residential units stacked one on top of each other). these are prime targets of developers looking to do a quick condo conversion.

the owner/contractor applies for a permit for gut rehabs of the kitchen and bathroom on all floors, with one wall being taken down (tripping Level 2). by measuring square footage of these two rooms, they stay below the 50% of the floor area threshold for sprinkles.

but part of the project is installing replacement windows, and doing a sheetrock layover over all the existing walls and ceilings.

is it reasonable to interpret that the the work area has now extended throughout the unit? and the sprinkler requirement is met?

specific code section for sprinker requirements is 2009 IEBC 704.2.2
Click to expand...
 
(The 2012 IEBC is used for this response)

The use of a 'work area' applies only to the Work Area Compliance Method, which is one of three compliance methods provided by the IEBC. The permit applicant selects the method which is to be used and not the building official. I usually advise my clients to use the Prescriptive Compliance Method whenever possible. The third compliance method is the Performance Compliance Method, but that method is only permitted for buildings built prior to a certain date as determined by the jurisdiction--usually, it's the date when a formal building code was first adopted for use by the jurisdiction.

As for the definition of a 'work area,' the IEBC provides a definition in Chapter 2, which I won't duplicate here. 'Work area' applies to reconfigured space, which is applicable to Level 2 alterations and above. Level 1 alterations do not reconfigure space, and thus are not part of the 'work area.'

Replacing windows and overlaying gypsum board does not reconfigure space, so it would be considered Level 1 alteration work if it does not qualify as a repair; thus, this work is not part of the 'work area.' The reconfigured bathrooms and kitchens would definitely be considered Level 2 alterations and each would be considered a 'work area.'

Per Section 804.2.2, if the work area does not exceed 50% of the floor area, then a sprinkler system is not required. Besides, Exception 1 of that section exempts 3-story Group R structures from the sprinkler requirement.

As I mentioned earlier, I generally advise my clients to use the Prescriptive Compliance Method--it is much easier to use and definitely does not trigger the installation of a sprinkler system for the type of work indicated in the OP. If there was a change in occupancy or additions were being made, then a sprinkler system throughout may be required.
 
I don't know why I missed the old thread the first time around, but I'm glad I had the opportunity here to respond.

Now I have a 'work area' question for you all:

Assume an existing, very large warehouse (Group S-1) with a total building area of 15,000 sq. ft. In the corner is a small 200 sq. ft. office. The owner wants to expand the office to 400 sq. ft. The office is definitely part of the 'work area'; however, technically, the storage portion is also reconfigured, which means that it, too, is part of the 'work area', thereby making 100% of the building area is reconfigured. This now requires a sprinkler system , since the 'work area' exceeds 50% of building area and the 2012 IBC Section 903.2.9 requires a Group S-1 fire area exceeding 12,000 sq. ft. to be sprinklered. Does that seem fair?
 
My question exactly.

Since 200 sq. ft. was taken from the large storage area, the large storage area has technically been reconfigured, too, and is thus part of the 'work area.'

See the definition of a work area--"That portion or portions of a building consisting of all reconfigured spaces..." Therefore, the office and the storage area are both part of the work area, which, in this case, is 100% of the building area.

Now, I agree that this is ridiculus. But what is there to prevent a building official, who only sees black and white in the code book, from making that kind of determination? In my opinion, nothing. I believe an exception needs to be added, such as limiting the 'work area' to 10 feet beyond the extent of the alteration work where the remaining walls of reconfigured space is greater than 10 feet from the location of the altered work...or, something to that effect.
 
I would only recognize this as a 2.7% work area which is more inline with the intent of the code. I agree with you that there are those inspectors that only read black and white.
 
Imagine the large warehouse operator wants to build a new 200 SF office in the far corner, and convert the old office to warehouse psace.

Would you handle that the same way?
 
Imagine the large warehouse operator wants to build a new 200 SF office in the far corner, and convert the old office to warehouse psace. Would you handle that the same way?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes--100% of the building area would be affected as I described it above. However, with my proposed exception, the 'work area' under that scenario would still not require a sprinkler installation, even though the 'work area' would be slightly larger compared to my example.Below is graphical example of how my proposed exception would work...View attachment 753

View attachment 756

Any thoughts?View attachment 754

View attachment 755

View attachment 753

View attachment 754

View attachment 755

View attachment 756

/monthly_2013_07/572953c98514e_CurrentIEBCworkareaapplication.JPG.a26069ec5991797869a5e7e56e6f40a7.JPG

/monthly_2013_07/572953c986e79_ExistingCondition.JPG.98ac3bb5350b4947dc242f52b316158d.JPG

/monthly_2013_07/572953c98d8e2_ProposedAlterationWork.JPG.db83ae4c494acccb7e623a66a882bc27.JPG

/monthly_2013_07/572953c98fbfe_ProposedExceptionforWorkArea.JPG.fb426a2913d28195354915f9a575e350.JPG
 
jar546 said:
Interesting proposal but do you think it is too specific and may not apply in all instances where the intent is for it to apply?
Click to expand...
I need to flesh it out some more and apply it to several conditions to see how it affects the application of the code. For example, if the 10-foot exception is applied to a space and the area within that 10-foot limitation exceeds 50% of the space, then the area of the entire space shall be included in the work area.
 
Rick, that happens too frequently.. little pieces of work a couple of years apart.. all under 50% of the floor area. Within 5 years or so, the entire building is renovated and none of it up to current code.
 
exactly... we know that.. and yet we keep falling for it. I thought the IEBC had a limitation to the timing of work to avoid it, but I can't find it right now.. may be a local amendment only.
 
RLGA said:
overlaying gypsum board does not reconfigure space
Click to expand...
How about a stupid question from an electrician? Laminating boards over existing walls and slightly reducing square footage doesn't 'reconfigure space'?
 
RLGA said:
I need to flesh it out some more and apply it to several conditions to see how it affects the application of the code. For example, if the 10-foot exception is applied to a space and the area within that 10-foot limitation exceeds 50% of the space, then the area of the entire space shall be included in the work area.
Click to expand...
This might seem like a dumb question, but I use a different code. The 10' rule you are muling around would only be applied horizontally (like in a set of plans), or would this also be applied vertically? For instance if I am adding a office that has 8' ceilings, the 10' foot rule would mean that the work area would extend the 8' height of the office, the framing and then 10' up? I guess in that scenario the work area would also extend from 10' under the proposed office as well.
 
tmurray: Work area applies only to the horizontal projection (i.e. floor area) of the alteration work. Therefore, regardless of how high (vertical) the alteration work is, the affected floor area remains the same; thus, the work area is the same.
 
In Massachusetts you can appeal any and all decisions made by a Building Official to an informal "Board of Appeals" where two State Building officials and a Fire Official will hear your request. The filing fee is $50 and appeals are heard in 30 days. In order to be successful you may have to show hardship or an alternative to a Building Officials ruling. When I hear complains about a building official...hey you can appeal!
 
RLGA said:
I need to flesh it out some more and apply it to several conditions to see how it affects the application of the code. For example, if the 10-foot exception is applied to a space and the area within that 10-foot limitation exceeds 50% of the space, then the area of the entire space shall be included in the work area.
Click to expand...
I believe the definition gives the designer the responsibility to determine the work area. If the designer defines the work area as including a 10 ft space located next to the new walls then the remaining warehouse space would not be included and the sprinkler requirements would not be applicable. JMHO

WORK AREA. That portion or portions of a building consisting of all reconfigured spaces as indicated on the construction documents. Work area excludes other portions of the building where incidental work entailed by the intended work must be performed and portions of the building where work not initially intended by the owner is specifically required by this code.
 
mtlogcabin: I agree with you.. problem always is... one designer says this.. the NEXT designer says that.. that's how they get around the IEBC limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top