Determining code analysis on older buildings.

[rktect 1]

Just thought I'd get some debate going on what to do when new plans come in on older existing projects.

At our village we have an archival area. Unfortunatly it really only goes back about 20 years. Basically I can look up these plans and check the title sheet for the code analysis. So ok, maybe 1 or 2 out of 5 actually provided the code analysis. I make all new submittals provide it now but apparently it wasn't deemed important enough in years/decades past.

So what do you do when a plan comes in and they provide information for the existing buildings code analysis and you can't find out if it is accurate or not? Maybe they are calling it a IIIB like in another of my posts but it is actually a VB. Having looked at the existing plans title sheet for this project I found the code analysis but looking at the building plans and how it was constructed, it might actually have been built to the IIIB. That is assuming you can get your hands on the existing plans, again anything older than about 20 years and we don't have them.

Again, just wondering what others would do.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

We are pretty much in the same boat as you (still looking around for the paddle). Don't have a good answer.

 

[rktect 1]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Just got one more in. Big name pizza joint going into existing tenant space. Calling it a IIIB instead of being the BOCA IIC which is now IIB. Luckily I found the existing plans and can now tell them to change their type of const. Probably doesn't matter much for this space but still, they should have easily have been able to put the correct type of const. on the plans. It took me all of five minutes to find out.

Now, why they think they are an M use group and not a B as a small space 1500 sq. ft. take out pizza place is another matter.

 

[Alias]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Well, as most of the original plans are non-existant, I require a stamped set of plans for major work on existing buildings. This is also required by CA DSA and everyone is pretty much used to it.

My main problem is that the county was the agency in charge until 1994 when they turned both building and planning over to the city. There records are as good as mine. :roll:

Sue, lost on the frontier

 

[JBI]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

If prior plans don't exist or lack sufficient detail (or if you're just that sure the new ones are wrong) request a meeting at the site to verify what they have on the plans.

 

[texas transplant]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Have to agree with JD here. Go to the site, look at what you have and make sure the field inspector knows whats going on as the inspection phase starts. It is the design professionals job to get the construction type etc. right on their plans, but nothing is better than my own eyes.

 

[Yikes]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

I recently did a project in a small beach community where I reserched the old building records. There were no old plans on file, but the Certificate of Occupancy from the early 1950's listed the construction type, occupancy type(s), and required number of parking spaces. Kudos to that building official for being so forward-thinking!

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Just got one more in. Big name pizza joint going into existing tenant space. Calling it a IIIB instead of being the BOCA IIC which is now IIB. Luckily I found the existing plans and can now tell them to change their type of const. Probably doesn't matter much for this space but still, they should have easily have been able to put the correct type of const. on the plans. It took me all of five minutes to find out.Now, why they think they are an M use group and not a B as a small space 1500 sq. ft. take out pizza place is another matter.

I got one calling it an M use and I like it better than the B myself...

 

[brudgers]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Just got one more in. Big name pizza joint going into existing tenant space. Calling it a IIIB instead of being the BOCA IIC which is now IIB. Luckily I found the existing plans and can now tell them to change their type of const. Probably doesn't matter much for this space but still, they should have easily have been able to put the correct type of const. on the plans. It took me all of five minutes to find out.Now, why they think they are an M use group and not a B as a small space 1500 sq. ft. take out pizza place is another matter.

If the building meets the minimum requirements of IIIB then, it's properly classified.

Even if it was classified differently on another occasion.

As the building code changes, so does the construction type of some existing buildings.

Construction type is not necessarily a constant over the life of a building any more than occupancy is.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Construction type is not necessarily a constant over the life of a building any more than occupancy is.

Agree I have seen many IIB's become V-B's in a short time.

 

[barry567]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

I just found a building that was brought to me to do a code review on that was filed as a 1A that is now VA. It only takes one plan stamper on an interior build-out to really mess things up for a building owner.

 

[buckshot]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

If you are allowing an existing building to be re-classified-- Why would it not be required to meet all current code requirements for the new construction type?

This is a slightly different issue than having the const type change over the years.

Recently I reviewed a set of drawings where the architect wanted to down-classify a steel and metal building to V-B. This would allow less expensive construction materials (wood studs) and presumably less skilled and costly labor.

The problem was fire ratings and fire separation distance. The distance to the property line was less than 5 feet. Table 602 requires a V-B to be 10 feet from the property line or be 1 hour fire rated. The building had neither.

Would you permit the creation of non-conforming fire resistance rating or fire separation distance?

 

[AegisFPE]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Calling it a IIIB instead of being the BOCA IIC which is now IIB. Luckily I found the existing plans and can now tell them to change their type of const. Probably doesn't matter much for this space.

Sure, the applicant could have simply made a typo, or maybe it does matter!

It's possible that it was wholly n/c construction back in the day, but some previous TI's went unnoticed and utilized combustible construction in the building. Perhaps when preparing the design plans, the applicant saw combustible construction during their survey, so figured it was just a step down from IIB and called it IIIB. However, the fire-resistance of the exterior wall may be a question for it to be a Type III, so maybe it should be Type VB! Or maybe it needed to be IIIB in order for the allowable area to work.

Or, maybe combustible construction was always present and the records are in error.

Based on all of these plausible scenarios, rather than specifying a construction type that may be inaccurate or spending time in archives that may or may not be representative of what exists today, it may be better to red-line it, confirm/verify/justify/etc., and have the applicant support their code analysis.

The construction type should be apparent to an inspector during the TI, but maybe it doesn't need to be allowed to progress that far if it can be worked out in the design stage.

Bummer for the applicant and owner if it turns out to be an existing nonconforming use. Or, maybe it's a candidate for an evaluation in accordance with IBC Section 3410.

 

[RLGA]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Buckshot:

I agree. If they are attempting to reclassify a building under the current code, it must meet all the requirements for that construction type.

 

[Frank]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

As the construction and occupancy classification requirements have changed over time and records are often not available or are of questionable accuracy it has to be evaluated and classified to what it most closely resembles and the renovations done in a manner that does not reduce existing levels of safety. Even field surveys of the building may not be able to fully detail the existing fire resistance ratings due to inaccessibility, archaic materials that cannot be fully identified and concealed materials.

Occupancy classifications have been all over the place in what was included--

In the 67 National building code all assembly from nightclubs to churches was in the same assembly group. The educational group included schools and colleges.

In 81 BOCA Churches, schools day care and colleges were grouped together under A-4.

In 2009 IBC A-4 is indoor sporting events with spectator seating.

Similarly construction classifications have varied widely as to what fire reistance ratings are required for what types, letters, numbers etc.

1967 Fire Resistive Construction Type A

Columns 3 hr if support only one floor or roof

----4 hr if more than one floor or roof and columns individually protected

Floors 3 hrs

Roofs 2 hours

Beams girders and trusses

--3 hrs if one floor or roof

--4 hours if more than one or supporting exterior masonary walls or interior masonary exit hallways or walls enclosing vertical openings.

Bearing walls 4 hours.

But there were no where near as stringent penetration protection requirements.

Just having a CO with a constrution type and occupancy code show does no good without having the code book to determine what that meant at the time and some assurance that it is not a typo.

As an aside the 1967 sprinkler thresholds for unprotected noncombustible (current 2B) and ordinary (3B) construction type one story restaraunts, combustible goods warehouses and merchantile stores with combustible goods was 9000 sq ft and 6000 sq ft for 2 story buildings.

 

[Architect1281]

Re: Determining code analysis on older buildings.

Not the easiest thing to do but even the 03, 06, and 09 IBC has a chapter 34

If you can find a Dp that goes back that far in the book. Direct them there.

and the helpful hints buried in sections 720 and 721

a majority of my design practice is in old buildings

a thorough ch 34 review usually saves the day

most difficult is even with good old data most contain Unpermitted, Unproffessionaly installed, work of

questionable quality, and nature. (Go Figure)

Most of my projects start by removing wourk of non compliant construction type, rating, finish and whatever else

could go in wrong and did.

From enclosure to electrical installation.

An Edit Add.

The Building Official should not have to figure out how the DP got there

CH 34 review should be handed in to the BO complete with comments and assumptions.

but we live and play in an imperfect world.

25 years + in design profession and now in enforcement I'm still astounded by the lack of knowledge

and consistency in design, construction, and enforcement