• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

FI /SI Occupancy

RJJ

RJJ

Co-Founder
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,940
Location
about 1' east of the white water
I am in the process of reviewing a rather larger auto repair expansion plan and at the same time reviewing a large auto dealership repair garage expansion. One DP has listed the auto repair / body shop as an FI while the other had listed his plan as an SI.

When and how would you all place the FI occupancy on a plan. Both expansions are about 3000 sf. One is sprinklered and the other has varying separations form 1hr to 3hrs. Your thoughts!?
 
A motor vehicle repair shop can be classified as Group S-1 if the maximum quantities of hazardous materials do not exceed the amounts of Table 307.1(1).

However, Group F-1 indicates the use of a building for a string of activities, which are not all inclusive since the section uses the conjunction "or." Within that list of activities is "repair." But, the section also states that this Group is used "when not classified as a Group H hazardous or Group S storage occupancy." Notice that there is no limitation in Group F-1 regarding the quantities of hazardous materials--I believe the authors of this section felt that the statement regarding Groups H and S at the end was sufficient to covered that potential condition.

My opinion is that the use of Group F-1 for repair of "automobiles and other motor vehicles" is not applicable, since it can be classified as either Group H or Group S. If the quantities of hazardous materials exceeds the amounts listed in Table 307.1(1), then the Group S-1 cannot be used and must, therefore, be classified in one of the Group H classes depending on the type of hazardous material present.
 
* * * *

RJJ,

I concur with RLGA' statement and viewpoint!....I would

go with the S-1 designation, unless you have supporting

documentation that leads you to believe otherwise.

* * * *
 
I believe after the first review letter I sent out that the DP changed the original plan from a SI to and FI. No place in the review did I question the original occupancy as a combination if SI & B. That was for plan #1. A different auto dealership submitted plans with no sprinklers for additions and listed it as SI & B occupancy. Plan #2. On the second plan I have some ?'s regarding the ratings for separation and water is not even close to the property so sprinklers will not be provided.

The heart of my question centers on the slight difference between FI & SI as listed in the code. Plan #1 started as an SI and the revise plan show FI. I believe the DP only read have of the text and settled on the more restrictive. That being said, that change would have cause some rather major increase costs to the builder. The quantities of material do not exceed the limits spelled out by the code. So I was puzzled and was in hope that someone could give me a new slant of the text of the IBC just in case I was missing something. Second guessing myself!
 
* * * *



RJJ,



If you are able, can you contact the DP and question the selected

Occupancy Use?.....Also, they ' can ' design above the code minimums

too!

2nd guessing yourself is just part of being thorough......Keep at it! ;)



* * * *
 
They can do welding in either! ( to an extent) Repair shops use torches to burn of mufflers etc. The code allows S1 for limited storage of Haz materials. If you exceed the limit then the occupancy bumps up to F1.

North: I did contact the DP and his first submission was an S1. The review letter I sent out had nothing to do with the occupancy class. So to my surprise, the revised plans had been listed as a F1 & B. I would have approved the up graded to be above the code. The builder and owner questioned the increase cost of construction and ratings etc. My response was your plan as submitted is now an F1. I believe it could be approved as an S1 your choice!

The second guess was did it or did I miss something in the review that would have call for it to be an F1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top