IBC section 3412, is it neccessary?

[BSSTG]

Greetings all once again,

Working on updating to the '09 Code when reading the sample ordinance at the start of the book to find out where all the inserts are. So, getting to the last one in 3412 Compliance Alternatives. In reading the commentary and looking at the section, I don't see how it's all that beneficial. Supposedly it allows some alternatives to updating these old buildings without requiring full compliance with other code sections. Some of you know I've been around and around with occupancy issues in these old bldgs. I'm considering deleting the entire section as it seems to me that it just causes more confusion. Then again, maybe it's just confusing me.

Thoughts?

Thanks

BS

 

[RLGA]

What's confusing about it?

 

[Frank]

It is a useful specialty too. Not used often but can make redevelopment possible.

 

[khsmith55]

If your jurisdiction is also adopting the 2009 IFC you should also review the “new” Chapter 46, read it at least four times to comprehend how far reaching it is. Chapter 34 of the IBC is fair and equitable for existing buildings but most likely be trumped by the Fire Code.

 

[RLGA]

I have the feeling many jurisdictions may alter or even delete this chapter. There is no coordination between this chapter and the IBC or IEBC. In essence, any violation of the current IBC found by the fire code official, even though it was acceptable by previous editions of the IBC, would require alterations (reduced exit width for sprinkler systems comes to mind). Somebody wasn't thinking when this was approved.

 

[khsmith55]

Once again I agree with RGLA. I could write an entire paper on the far reaching implications of the 2009 Chapter 34 of the IFC, I may in multiple posts, but I encourage all to read this chapter. Todays point will be Atriums. In “ole” UBC days an atrium was a three story space, how many two story entry spaces with balconies overlooking the entry do you have in your jurisdiction (we Architects like that)? Did everyone miss in the first Edition of the IBC (2000) that the definition of an atrium went to a two story space from the three story space in the UBC? I ask all Building and Fire Officials how you’re going to enforce Section 4603.3.4 of the 2009 IFC on buildings built a few years ago under the UBC? Are you going to tell the building owners they either have to retrofit their balcony hallways with a one-hour separation or sprinkler their building? NOTE the commentary states this chapter is “retroactively applicable”. Enough for todays post.

 

[RLGA]

Not all two-story spaces are atriums. Atriums were, and still are, an exception for unenclosed shafts (See Exception 5, Section 708.2). Two-story openings that comply with Exception 7 of Section 708.2 are not required to be atriums.

 

[khsmith55]

RGLA, thanks for the reference, these sections have been pointed out to me before and once again I read them, my simple mind is still confused, have been waiting for a ICC interpatation. UBC land seemed much simpler...........lets all go back to the 82 Uniform Codes, short, sweet and not a “nanny” code.

 

[conarb]

..........lets all go back to the 82 Uniform Codes, short, sweet and not a “nan

Here here - codes have gone way too far promoting commercial, social and political agenda.

 

[High Desert]

You are never required to construct an atrium, it's a design option.

 

[permitguy]

Regarding the OP, I guess 3412 isn't "necesarry", but it gives building officials and designers some pretty significant tools. It would be much more difficult (and expensive) to require complete compliance with all provisions of the current code on an existing building.

Regarding the IFC, it is Chapter 46, there is very little that is "new" about it, and its implications are not nearly as far-reaching as is being implied above.

 

[peach]

Be careful what you adopt; most jurisdictions delete 3412 in favor of IEBC; if you adopt both, design, plan review and inspections get confusing.

 

[BSSTG]

Yea, the city attorney and I got our signals mixed up. I wasn't quite ready to adopt all of the 09 stuff and it was done. My concern is conflicts between the fire and building code. After all of the stuff I've gone thru the last year, I don't want to deal with more conflicts in the codes. I'm certainly not the expert I would like to be but I can tell you this, enforcement of this stuff in court can certainly be challenging.That said, we haven't lost yet. But then, the city attorney told me that if I set him up for failure he would scalp me.

We have another challenging case coming up. It involves an unlicensed junkyard, piling up crap in a floodway, illegal handling of appliances, no operational fire permit, no c/o, and a host of other misc stuff. To top it off, the business owner has cussed us out, threatened me with civil rights violations, all sorts of good stuff. challenges abound!

BSSTG