• 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.

Historic Building , Museum - Addition and Alteration

blugosi

blugosi

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
121
Location
Greece
This is a general question.

I am looking at a Historic Building project.

This is a 100.000 sqft Museum which will undergo Level 3 Alteration and an addition of another 200.000 sqft area.

The addition will be a basement of sorts.

Which ICC codes would apply? I am thinking IEBC for the existing part and IBC for the addition, but some questions arise.

If the IBC requirements for addition lead to a significantly different architectural and aesthetic approach, what do we do? How do we approach the interconnection between the two structures?

Does anybody know of such a project previously carried out in the USA?
 
The IEBC is the starting point for existing buildings (if your jurisdiction has adopted it), and for additions the IEBC says the addition shall comply with the IBC.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
The IEBC is the starting point for existing buildings (if your jurisdiction has adopted it), and for additions the IEBC says the addition shall comply with the IBC.
Click to expand...
Sure.

How about the historic building angle?
Would that give me some leeway with the addition?
 
redeyedfly said:
No. You are describing a design problem, not a code problem. Make your design meet the code and the aesthetic, that's what your clients pay you for.
Click to expand...
I am not the architect. I am FP , from Mechanical origins.

The architect is asking me if they can replicate the existing building layouts, into the addition for consistency and uniformity.

The existing building does not meet any Code, and it has been exempted by the State long before I was born.
And I am close to retirement :).

If we need to comply with IEBC/IBC and meet the architect’s wish, we may need to go with PBD all the way…..
 
IEBC Chapters 11, and 12 not level 3

Chapter 6 Classification of Work. This chapter provides an overview of the Work Area Method available as an option for rehabilitation of a building. The chapter defines the different classifications of alterations and provides general requirements for alterations, change of occupancy, additions and historic buildings. Detailed requirements for all of these are given in subsequent Chapters 7 through 12.
Chapter 11 Additions. Chapter 11 provides the requirements for additions, which correlate to the code requirements for new construction. There are, however, some exceptions that are specifically stated within this chapter. An “Addition” is defined in Chapter 2 as “an extension or increase in the floor area, number of stories or height of a building or structure.” Chapter 11 contains the minimum requirements for an addition that is not separated from the existing building by a fire wall.

There are also requirements for storm shelters when additions are being made to Group E occupancies.

Chapter 12 Historic Buildings. This chapter provides some exceptions from code requirements when the building in question has historic value. The most important criterion for application of this chapter is that the building must be essentially accredited as being of historic significance by a state or local authority after careful review of the historical value of the building. Most, if not all, states have such authorities, as do many local jurisdictions. The agencies with such authority can be located at the state or local government level or through the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Other considerations include the structural condition of the building (i.e., is the building structurally sound), its proposed use, its impact on life safety and how the intent of the code, if not the letter, will be achieved.
 
blugosi said:
How about the historic building angle?
Would that give me some leeway with the addition?
Click to expand...

No.

Historic buildings are addressed in chapter 12 of the IEBC. That chapter addresses repairs, fire safety, changes of occupancy, structural integrity, and relocated [historical] buildings. In other words -- it applies to the historical building but not to any additions.
 
blugosi said:
Maximum floor area for specific construction type, same as the existing building maybe?
Click to expand...

No. Unless the addition is separated from the existing building by a firewall (which seems unlikely, since you said the addition will be mostly basement), the ENTIRE building will be subject to the height and area limits in the current building code.

blugosi said:
Common path of travel limits?
Click to expand...

The addition will be subject to current code requirements.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
No. Unless the addition is separated from the existing building by a firewall (which seems unlikely, since you said the addition will be mostly basement), the ENTIRE building will be subject to the height and area limits in the current building code.



The addition will be subject to current code requirements.
Click to expand...
But the basement wouldn't necessarily increase the Ch. 5 building area.......This sounds weird...
 
blugosi said:
If the IBC requirements for addition lead to a significantly different architectural and aesthetic approach, what do we do? How do we approach the interconnection between the two structures?
Click to expand...

As an architect, I find this question confusing. The building code does not in any way define, require, or even suggest an "architectural or aesthetic approach." You can design a new structure to look like anything you want, from a spaceship to a replica of the Acropolis.

You are in Greece. Where is this project located? If it's in the U.S., is the building actually listed on the federal or state registry of historic buildings, or are you calling it "historic" just because it's old? This is an important distinction, because if the building is listed on a historic building registry, the NPS (National Park service) guidelines in general frown upon making additions try to mimic the historic portion of the building. They DON'T want additions to be like Disneyland reproductions, where visitors can't distinguish between the original and the new.

As an example of how strongly this is regarded, you may be aware that glass for windows from our colonial era (17th and 18th centuries) was uneven, sort of like the bottom of a glass beverage bottle. In an historic building, if a window pane is broken, the guidelines do NOT want the broken pane replaced with reproduction "Coke bottle" glass, they want it replaced by modern flat glass, so there's no confusion about what is original and what is not. (Personally, I don't agree with this philosophy, but they didn't ask me.)

In the U.S. additions to registered historic buildings generally look NOTHING like the original portion -- by design and intent.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
What is "FP" and what is "PBD"?
Click to expand...
I am PE Fire Protection, and PE Mechanical . My first Degree was Mechanical / Aeronautical in the 80s and I switched to FP from there.
PBD is Performance Based Design. Within the ICC sphere it is addressed in the ICC Performance Code and there is Appendix O of the IBC making a general reference to that.
I have never used it before, but I have some experience with the SFPE Guide to Performance-Based Fire Safety Design.
 
I don't know if any jurisdictions in the U.S. have adopted the ICC Performance Code. I know that my state has not. If the jurisdiction where the project is located has not specifically adopted the ICC Performance Code, in order to use it you must apply in writing to the Building Official and request to be allowed to use it as an alternative to the IBC.

As it states in the first section of Appendix O:

O101.1 Introduction. The following administrative provisions
are excerpted from the ICC Performance Code for
Buildings and Facilities and can be used in conjunction with
the Alternate Methods provisions in Chapter 1, or for a
review of submittals requiring a rational analysis or performance-
based design. These provisions provide an
established framework for the building official in terms of
the design expertise needed, the necessary submittals, a
review framework and related items.
Click to expand...

I believe that's referring to this paragraph from the IBC:

[A] 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of
construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are
not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to
prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically
prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has
been approved. An alternative material, design or method of
construction shall be approved where the building official
finds that the proposed alternative meets all of the following:

1. The alternative material, design or method of construction
is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the
provisions of this code,

2. The material, method or work offered is, for the purpose
intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed
in this code as it pertains to the following:

2.1. Quality.
2.2. Strength.
2.3. Effectiveness.
2.4. Fire resistance.
2.5. Durability.
2.6. Safety.

Where the alternative material, design or method of construction
is not approved, the building official shall respond in
writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not
approved.
Click to expand...
 
Massachusetts allows Peformance Based Designs as alternative to code requirements 901.2 for fire protection systems including passive protection, exit distances, fire alarm voice systems, for example
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top