Existing Building vs New Construction work area method

[chrisrog]

We have an existing 25 unit apartment building (R-2) in town that was damaged by fire. 15 of the units on one end are undamaged and will be put back in service with only fresh paint and carpet. The other 10 units (all on one end) have damage to the floor trusses, so will be demolished to the foundations and rebuilt to match existing.

As I read the 2015 existing building code using the Work Area Compliance Method, I would interpret this project to be a Level 2 alteration since we are replacing structure, windows, systems, etc, but we are modifying less than 50% of the building. (10/25 = 40%) We are re-using the existing foundations.

Is my interpretation correct to this point?

If so, am I correct that 804.2.2 states that adding a fire sprinkler system to the reconstructed portion of the work is not required since the work area is below 50%?

The Building Official and the Fire Marshal have required the new construction be sprinklered. They rejected the work area compliance method argument and stated the 40% of the building that we are rebuilding is considered new construction, therefore must fully follow IBC, not IEBC.

Any insight would be appreciated. I don't mind being wrong, but they haven't convinced me that they are following the requirements of the code.

We plan to provide the sprinkler system in the rebuilt portion of the building regardless, but I need to know if that sprinkler system is above and beyond the minimum requirements.

Thank you for your expertise.

 

[steveray]

Good question...I'll have to look into that, I can see both sides...

 

[mtlogcabin]

so will be demolished to the foundations and rebuilt to match existing.

The IEBC does not cover demolish and replace
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The intent of this code is to provide flexibility to permit the use of alternative approaches to achieve compliance with minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare insofar as they are affected by the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition and relocation of existing buildings.

Sorry but if you are removing everything above the foundation then the existing building is no longer there and you should be using the IBC only. I agree you do not need to sprinkle the existing undamaged apartments however you should provide a properly rated fire barrier between the existing and the new and you are required to sprinkle the new portion and should make sure the water flow and pipe size is adequate for the existing apartments for future sprinkler installation.

 

[tbz]

Welcome to the Forum Chris,

Basing it on the number of units for percentage of work area, 10/25 I would think is an over simplified method.

Thus, what percentage of the sqft floor area and how many levels are we talking here?

25 unit apartment building's come in all shapes and sizes.

The 10 being rebuilt could be more than 50% of the sqft area for the complex or are we to assume all 25 units are identical which is why you did not go into it more.

But, I am not sure the IEBC teardown to Foundation level and rebuild is covered in an alteration, would be new structure in my view and IBC.

 

[chrisrog]

The IEBC does not cover demolish and replace
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The intent of this code is to provide flexibility to permit the use of alternative approaches to achieve compliance with minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare insofar as they are affected by the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition and relocation of existing buildings.

Sorry but if you are removing everything above the foundation then the existing building is no longer there and you should be using the IBC only. I agree you do not need to sprinkle the existing undamaged apartments however you should provide a properly rated fire barrier between the existing and the new and you are required to sprinkle the new portion and should make sure the water flow and pipe size is adequate for the existing apartments for future sprinkler installation.

Welcome to the Forum Chris,

Basing it on the number of units for percentage of work area, 10/25 I would think is an over simplified method.

Thus, what percentage of the sqft floor area and how many levels are we talking here?

25 unit apartment building's come in all shapes and sizes.

The 10 being rebuilt could be more than 50% of the sqft area for the complex or are we to assume all 25 units are identical which is why you did not go into it more.

But, I am not sure the IEBC teardown to Foundation level and rebuild is covered in an alteration, would be new structure in my view and IBC.

All of the units are the same floor plan. The building is three floors on the downhill side and 2 floors on the parking side with 5 units per bay. Each breezeway accesses 2 bays (10 units) with the remaining 5 units accessed from the end of the building. All units have the same floor plan. The fire burned the floor trusses of 2 bays at one end...so it damaged the 5 units in the end bay and the 5 units in the next bay over. So the damage was limited to 40% of the building in terms of both unit count and SF area.

We met with the building official before demolition to ask if there was a code requirement difference in selectively replacing the damaged floor trusses vs demo to the foundations and rebuild the damaged units. We outlined the EBC work area compliance method analysis above. Demo to foundation was preferred by the owner because of the large amount of undamaged fabric that would be disrupted by trying to do selective demolition. The city agreed with the method and issued a demo permit. Once the demo was complete they changed their opinion and said this is now new construction, and mandated we add the sprinkler.

The problem I have with the interpretation is no one can tell me when the work crosses the line from work area compliance method to something else. We could have left the basement floor walls, a large portion of the 1st floor framing, and the first floor walls on the 2 story side in place. We could have shored up the exterior walls that weren't carrying trusses..... had the official not changed his opinion after demo was completed.

When the drawings were created there was a building in need of repair. Repair necessitated removal of some existing fabric. Based on the work required to do the repairs, we opted to replace doors, windows, HVAC and Plumbing systems in the damaged areas. Per code, messing with those items is beyond the scope of a level 1 alteration. Level 2 alteration allows extensive reworking of a building if the 50% threshold is not crossed. We didn't cross it. If we did, show me how we crossed it. Our proposed work stayed completely within the bounds of the 40% per the Work Area Compliance Method.

 

[steveray]

[A] ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition. Alterations are classified as Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.

504.1 Scope. Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment. (No limits placed)

Any board of appeals or anything in Alabama Chris? Interp from ICC?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

If the demo and repairs were on the same permit I would go by the IEBC. If a permit is applied for after the demo I would call it a new building.

 

[steveray]

Would the building be a building without the foundation? I guess there is still part of an existing building then....Still not fully decided on this and what the implications really are, but I do like playing devils advocate....If you replace just the foundation would you call it a new building?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Why did you not go to Chapter 4 of the IEBC for the repairs that needed to be done?

 

[TheCommish]

I would consider this new, not work on a existing building. If you were to put an addition up againt an existing building it would not be considered an alteration. If you were to put a new larger opening in an existing wall you would not use an underside header because the rest of the building had undersized headers, the new work has to comply with the current code.

 

[steveray]

I would consider this new, not work on a existing building. If you were to put an addition up againt an existing building it would not be considered an alteration. If you were to put a new larger opening in an existing wall you would not use an underside header because the rest of the building had undersized headers, the new work has to comply with the current code.

Additions are covered separately.....And certainly, structurally (and others), I agree with you, but......

 

[mtlogcabin]

We plan to provide the sprinkler system in the rebuilt portion of the building regardless, but I need to know if that sprinkler system is above and beyond the minimum requirements.

I am glad to see you are providing the sprinkler system in the rebuilt portion. To answer the second part of your question if you had not demolished the building down to the foundation and just replaced the damaged floor joist then yes installing the sprinkler system would have been above and beyond the minimum code requirements.

You stated you met with the building official about demo versus replace but you did not mention if the fire marshal was in agreement at that time.

 

[chrisrog]

[A] ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition. Alterations are classified as Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.

504.1 Scope. Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment. (No limits placed)

Any board of appeals or anything in Alabama Chris? Interp from ICC?

The City has an Appeals Board. I'll look into the ICC interpretation.

 

[chrisrog]

If the demo and repairs were on the same permit I would go by the IEBC. If a permit is applied for after the demo I would call it a new building.

If they wanted to take this interpretation, then they should have said so at the pre-demolition plans review phase.

 

[chrisrog]

Why did you not go to Chapter 4 of the IEBC for the repairs that needed to be done?

I did exactly that on the last project like this, but it was a different municipality. This official rejected that immediately, so I went with the process I thought was well beyond the minimum. He agreed with our approach until we were past the point of no return.

 

[chrisrog]

I would consider this new, not work on a existing building. If you were to put an addition up againt an existing building it would not be considered an alteration. If you were to put a new larger opening in an existing wall you would not use an underside header because the rest of the building had undersized headers, the new work has to comply with the current code.

I can see that point...but we aren't undersizing anything. The entire rebuild is structurally fine. I believe we exceeded the code requirements when we agreed to put in the sprinkler system.

The issue that has now arisen is the trusses required to make the floor to floor height work have to be 12" to make the ceiling heights match existing. The radiation dampers (which the existing building does not have) only appear to work in an 18" truss. I propose that since we are sprinkling the building beyond the requirements of the building code, the protection afforded by the sprinklers is above and beyond the minimums required in this repair / alteration project. I understand that a new build would be required to be sprinklered regardless.

 

[chrisrog]

I am glad to see you are providing the sprinkler system in the rebuilt portion. To answer the second part of your question if you had not demolished the building down to the foundation and just replaced the damaged floor joist then yes installing the sprinkler system would have been above and beyond the minimum code requirements.

You stated you met with the building official about demo versus replace but you did not mention if the fire marshal was in agreement at that time.

The building official didn't include the fire marshal in that meeting...he didn't agree.

Again, no one seems to be able to tell me where the demolition line stops with there Work Area Compliance method. Who says the answer is keeping foundation equals new construction? The new work that was put back meets code requirements. Sprinklers aren't required, but if they were, they would have to be put in per code just like everything else.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I did exactly that on the last project like this, but it was a different municipality. This official rejected that immediately, so I went with the process I thought was well beyond the minimum. He agreed with our approach until we were past the point of no return.

Under the IEBC the official does not have the authority to reject the method you choose to use. The 2018 IEBC clarified this in the changes

This code provides three main options for a designer in dealing with alterations of existing buildings. These are laid out in Section 301 of this code:

OPTION 1: Work for alteration, change of occupancy or addition of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Prescriptive Compliance Method given in Chapter 4. It should be noted that this method originates from the former Chapter 34 of the International Building Code (2012 and earlier editions).

OPTION 2: Work for alteration, change of occupancy or addition of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Work Area Compliance Method given in Chapters 6 through 12.

OPTION 3: Work for alteration, change of occupancy or addition of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Performance Compliance Method given in Chapter 13. It should be noted that this option was also provided in the former Chapter 34 of the International Building Code (2012 and earlier editions).

Under limited circumstances, a building alteration can be made to comply with the laws under which the building was originally built, as long as there has been no substantial structural damage and there will be limited structural alteration.

Note that all repairs must comply with Chapter 4 and relocated buildings are addressed by Chapter 14.

SECTION 403
FIRE PROTECTION

403.1 General.
Repairs shall be done in a manner that maintains the level of fire protection provided.

Sprinklers could have been required to be installed using Chapter 4 if they did not exist

 

[dancinbear]

The demo was permitted separately. Once complete, that portion of the building is GONE and the demo permit may be closed. What you are proposing at this point is an ADDITION to an existing building built on a portion of existing foundation. The project is NOT an alteration because post-demo there is nothing left to alter. You said it was the owner's choice to tear down to the foundation. Ideally the building department should have advised that IEBC 1103.1 would apply to the project: full IBC compliance for the new construction portion of the building. Without being a party to the chain of communications with the owner, the building official may have originally thought the project was going to be an alteration but the project morphed into a demo/new construction addition.

 

[steveray]

The demo was permitted separately. Once complete, that portion of the building is GONE

If a portion is gone...that means some building is left and therefore not a new building...And I am not super quick on calling it an addition either...

[A] ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure.

But I see where one could...

 

[TheCommish]

if you were to be a new wall in an existing building the new wall would have to meet he requirements of new construction, so my take is the once the building was removed there is nothing to alter or repair, or reconfigure configure this is new construction.

Another take, if there was an existing building that was removed to the foundations would that be a repair, alteration or reconfiguration? I think not, that is all new construction.

The OP should be happy they only have to sprinkle the new work, here in MASS. he would have to do the whole building.

Or the OP should file an appeal the AHJ's ruling to the appropriate entity.

 

[chrisrog]

Under the IEBC the official does not have the authority to reject the method you choose to use. The 2018 IEBC clarified this in the changes

This code provides three main options for a designer in dealing with alterations of existing buildings. These are laid out in Section 301 of this code:

OPTION 1: Work for alteration, change of occupancy or addition of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Prescriptive Compliance Method given in Chapter 4. It should be noted that this method originates from the former Chapter 34 of the International Building Code (2012 and earlier editions).

OPTION 2: Work for alteration, change of occupancy or addition of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Work Area Compliance Method given in Chapters 6 through 12.

OPTION 3: Work for alteration, change of occupancy or addition of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Performance Compliance Method given in Chapter 13. It should be noted that this option was also provided in the former Chapter 34 of the International Building Code (2012 and earlier editions).

Under limited circumstances, a building alteration can be made to comply with the laws under which the building was originally built, as long as there has been no substantial structural damage and there will be limited structural alteration.

Note that all repairs must comply with Chapter 4 and relocated buildings are addressed by Chapter 14.

SECTION 403
FIRE PROTECTION

403.1 General.
Repairs shall be done in a manner that maintains the level of fire protection provided.

Sprinklers could have been required to be installed using Chapter 4 if they did not exist

If a portion is gone...that means some building is left and therefore not a new building...And I am not super quick on calling it an addition either...

[A] ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure.

But I see where one could...

When you go through the IEBC using the definitions in the Code, it's clearly either a repair or an alteration, so that's what we went into the initial meeting with. At that point the official agreed and issued a demo permit so the owner could get started. At that point the entire building existed and the work area was 40% of that area. 2 months later the fire marshal concluded he wanted the new work sprinklered, so the BO declared the IEBC didn't apply since so much of the building was now gone. Again, the only reason some of that work was gone was because in the preliminary meeting they agreed to the work area compliance method.

 

[chrisrog]

if you were to be a new wall in an existing building the new wall would have to meet he requirements of new construction, so my take is the once the building was removed there is nothing to alter or repair, or reconfigure configure this is new construction.

Another take, if there was an existing building that was removed to the foundations would that be a repair, alteration or reconfiguration? I think not, that is all new construction.

The OP should be happy they only have to sprinkle the new work, here in MASS. he would have to do the whole building.

Or the OP should file an appeal the AHJ's ruling to the appropriate entity.

The new wall would have to meet the requirements for that new wall within the Existing Building Code. The exact requirements change depending on things like % of work area. At a work area of 40%, sprinkler is not required. At a work area of 50% it is. The code official essentially declared the new construction was a new building and no longer part of the existing building, therefore work areas don't apply.

Had the owner torn down a portion of the building, then come back and started a discussion about building a new building back, that would clearly be an addition. But that's not what we did. We removed the damaged portion of a building as required to re-build the existing building.

Here's the crux of the problem: No one can tell me where the line between alteration and new construction is PER THE CODE. If I only had to rebuild the end wall, that's not a new building. If I took off the entire upper floor and rebuilt, that's not a new building, if I replaced 5 of the 25 units, that's not a new building. If I replaced 10 of the 25 units, that's not a new building, especially when the rebuilt units adjacent to the existing construction still rely on the existing breezeway and stairs for access.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Sometimes it is in the definitions

2012
[A] ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition.

[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance.

2015 IEBC


2018 IEBC
[A] ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition.
[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage.