• 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

IEBC Alterations vs. Fire Protection

D

DTBarch

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
78
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Given:

Existing 94,016sf one story office building. Type IIIB Fully Sprinkled. Currently divided into 2 tenant spaces.

Former tenant of one of the spaces electively installed a fire alarm system including smoke/ducts, horn/strobes, and annunciator that covered their space only in order to comply with their corporate risk management policies since most of their facilities were educational in nature. This office was a straight business occupancy in an existing building with smaller package heat pumps. As such, they were not required by the IFC to have or install a fire alarm system, only flow tamper with dialer for the sprinkler system, which was existing. IFC Section 907.9 refers to Table 1103.1 where existing buildings with Group B occupancies are exempt. That tenant has since filed BK and vacated the building.

New tenant for this space moves in. Same occupancy class. Because the alarm system has been problematic from a maintenance standpoint, the building ownership wants to remove the fire alarm system that was originally installed electively, leaving only the required sprinkler flow to dialer system.

While the IFC seems to exempt the requirement, IEBC Section 703.1 requires that any alteration shall be done in a manner that maintains the level of fire protection provided. Some municipalities, like Longmont, Colorado, for instance, have amended the IEBC to change the word "Provided" with the word "Required", thereby theoretically allowing removal in our case since it is and was not "required"

QUESTION: Curious on how many of you have seen similar amendments out there? Was "required" a more appropriate word than "provided" with the original intent? Don't have a copy of the commentary, so not sure if that's part of the discussion there or not?

We're being told that IEBC 703.1, is the overriding piece of code and therefore, the existing fire alarm system must remain in place.
 
We're being told that IEBC 703.1, is the overriding piece of code and therefore, the existing fire alarm system must remain in place.
Click to expand...
They are wrong.

The IEBC has three different methods to choose from when work is being done on an existing building. The designer gets to pick and follow that method, not what the AHJ wants

COMPLIANCE METHODS

301.1 General.

The repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall comply with one of the methods listed in Sections 301.1.1 through 301.1.3 as selected by the applicant. Application of a method shall be the sole basis for assessing the compliance of work performed under a single permit unless otherwise approved by the code official. Sections 301.1.1 through 301.1.3 shall not be applied in combination with each other. Where this code requires consideration of the seismic force-resisting system of an existing building subject to repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of existing buildings, the seismic evaluation and design shall be based on Section 301.1.4 regardless of which compliance method is used.

Exception: Subject to the approval of the code official, alterations complying with the laws in existence at the time the building or the affected portion of the building was built shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code unless the building is undergoing more than a limited structural alteration as defined in Section 907.4.3. New structural members added as part of the alteration shall comply with the International Building Code. Alterations of existing buildings in flood hazard areas shall comply with Section 701.3.

301.1.1 Prescriptive compliance method.

Repairs, alterations, additions and changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 4 of this code in buildings complying with the International Fire Code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

If it is not required for new construction it does not have to stay.



301.1.2 Work area compliance method.

Repairs, alterations, additions, changes in occupancy and relocated buildings complying with the applicable requirements of Chapters 5 through 13 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.

301.1.3 Performance compliance method.

Repairs, alterations, additions, changes in occupancy and relocated buildings complying with Chapter 14 of this code shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.
 
101.2 Scope.

The provisions of the International Existing Building Code shall apply to the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocation of existing buildings. A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its intended purpose shall comply with the provisions of the International Building Code for new construction. Repairs, alterations, change of occupancy, existing buildings to which additions are made, historic buildings, and relocated buildings complying with the provisions of the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Plumbing Code, and International Residential Code as applicable shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code.
 
The intent of the IEBC is not to require MORE than new construction. Quite the opposite, it is intended to usually require a bit less than new construction.
 
Unfortunately, I have run into instances where the AHJ refuses to budge from the standpoint of, "if it's already there you have to keep it, even if it's not required for new construction" stating that the IEBC 703.1 section mandates that. Won't accept alternate interpretations. Had a small suite of offices (1,000 SF?) that had SIX egress doors... when we tried to demo and remove one they said that was a no-no.
 
"New" Construction...

mtlogcabin said:
If it is not required for new construction it does not have to stay.
Click to expand...
MTLOGCABIN - So that's where we may cross a line a bit. If this were NEW construction, we would be subject to IFC 907.2 and not IFC 907.9, and therefore we would have to install fire alarm systems because our overall occupant load for the building exceeds 500, therefore IFC 907.2.2 would apply as it relates to Group B Occupancies.

So we can't actually say that it's not required for new construction. If the statement was "If it's not required for an alteration to an existing building or structure, than it does not have to stay", then we might have a brighter path to a definitive exemption. Is your statement an actual code quote? If that's the case, I think my argument prospect is weakening :surr
 
The red was my interpretation

If it is required for new then I agree your argument is getting weak

IFC 907.2 is for new construction

IFC 907.9 is for existing buildings which sends you to Chapter 11 which is retroactive which is applicable to portions of your project that are not being modified.

I would need more info before I would let you remove a portion of an alarm system that is required by the current code.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I would need more info before I would let you remove a portion of an alarm system that is required by the current code.
Click to expand...
I agree, if it is required by the code in effect now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top