Occypancy classification for A/C simulators

[blugosi]

Within the envelope of an aircraft maintenance hangar (ca 800.000 sqft), on one of its corners I have a 35.000 square feet airline training center, where they provide pilot training simulators and a swimming pool to train cabin crew as required by FAA. This part is separated with rated walls from the rest of the hangar.

What theoretical load is applicable in this case? Can we apply the 500 sqft gross used for hangars? Should we choose Business with 150 sqft?

The footprint is mostly covered by all the systems, simulators, a/c mockups for evacuation training, the pool etc.

Se attached layout

 

[Paul Sweet]

This is one case where basing the occupant load on the number of people in all the trainers at the same time, rather than basing it on area, would make sense. I don't think people should be standing around in the training areas while a simulator is being used.

 

[steveray]

500 for hangers or actual, whichever is greater...

 

[north star]

# ~ #

I wonder if the OP is actually in Greece, or somewhere else.
Are we assuming the IBC is being referenced ?

Also, I wonder if the Aircraft Trainers will be used
simultaneously with the swimming pool users.

# ~ #

 

[blugosi]

# ~ #

I wonder if the OP is actually in Greece, or somewhere else.
Are we assuming the IBC is being referenced ?

# ~ #

Yes, I am actually in Greece.
The thing is that for aircraft maintenance hangars around the world, NFPA 409 is the standard to follow, since there are no equivalent codes.
NFPA 409 points back to NFPA 101 for life safety.
NFPA 101 refers to NFPA 5000, building code.

Since NFPA 5000 is not what we would call widely accepted, we frequently use the IBC, even though it is not the adopted building code. It is a code accepted by many jurisdictions, so I can put my trust on it , so to say.
Such approaches are frequent in EMEA.