I have an applicant questioning the logic of why the occupant load calculations are different for the plumbing fixture count compared to the occupant load in chapter 10. For example, the occupant load based on Table 1004.1.1 calculates out to be 60 (A3 occupancy 3000/50=60 people). However, the occupant load to determine the number of plumbing fixtures calculates out to 190 (95 men, 95 women 2850/15=190). Per Table 2902.1 (WA amendments) they would need 1 toilet for male and 2 toilets for female. They are asking why do they have to design the plumbing fixtures for 190 people if the occupant load is only 60? I know it all works out the same but what is the logic of the SBCC to amend it this way and provide for a different number of occupants?
-
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.
# of plumbing fixtures
- Thread starter JMG
- Start date
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
The use is a fitness gym. How did they come up with the factors to use to determine the occupant load to base the # of plumbing fixtures? I am in WA and Ch 29 has been amended to use a different factor (not the same factor you use to determine the occupant load).
The use is a fitness gym. How did they come up with the factors to use to determine the occupant load to base the # of plumbing fixtures? I am in WA and Ch 29 has been amended to use a different factor (not the same factor you use to determine the occupant load).
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
Peach,
You know, women's rights and all that stuff;
http://urinal.net/texas_am/
I first saw them being installed in a country western dance hall in Waco, Texas,
Uncle Bob
Peach,
You know, women's rights and all that stuff;
http://urinal.net/texas_am/
I first saw them being installed in a country western dance hall in Waco, Texas,
Uncle Bob
vegas paul
Silver Member
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
OK, without seeing the WA amendments, this is difficult to understand - Why are you using a different occupant load factor each time (50 vs. 15?). Occupant load factor is BASED ON THE USE, not the occupancy classification (have I ranted on this before???), so the 15 sq. ft. per occupant is not an appropriate o.l.f. if it is a gym.
Step 1 - calculate the occupant load based on use/function
Step 2 - go to Ch. 29 with that number and apply it to the tables...
Step 3 - remember to lower the lid when you're done...
If your WA amendments are goofed up, then look to your own committees that produced them - that's why I participate on or chair many of these committees - I want things to be logical and consistent for me AND my customers.
OK, without seeing the WA amendments, this is difficult to understand - Why are you using a different occupant load factor each time (50 vs. 15?). Occupant load factor is BASED ON THE USE, not the occupancy classification (have I ranted on this before???), so the 15 sq. ft. per occupant is not an appropriate o.l.f. if it is a gym.
Step 1 - calculate the occupant load based on use/function
Step 2 - go to Ch. 29 with that number and apply it to the tables...
Step 3 - remember to lower the lid when you're done...
If your WA amendments are goofed up, then look to your own committees that produced them - that's why I participate on or chair many of these committees - I want things to be logical and consistent for me AND my customers.
Mac
Gold Member
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
Somebody is looking for logic in building codes?
Cut it out - yer killin me!
Somebody is looking for logic in building codes?
Cut it out - yer killin me!
JBI
REGISTERED
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
Uncle Bob, you are the MAN! I've been looking for a source for womens urinals. (Not being sarcastic by the way...) I was trying to help a restaurant under renovation a while back in the Town of Cochecton, and knew they were out there, but couldn't find them on the web at the time... now it's in my favorites!
Uncle Bob, you are the MAN! I've been looking for a source for womens urinals. (Not being sarcastic by the way...) I was trying to help a restaurant under renovation a while back in the Town of Cochecton, and knew they were out there, but couldn't find them on the web at the time... now it's in my favorites!
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
The I codes attempted to consolodate the occupant load factors so there was some common numbers between egress, ventilation and fixture counts. Washington State never left the Uniform Plumbing Code and the UPC had different numbers. Now that UPC and ICC have kissed and made up, maybe the two will be coordinated.
The I codes attempted to consolodate the occupant load factors so there was some common numbers between egress, ventilation and fixture counts. Washington State never left the Uniform Plumbing Code and the UPC had different numbers. Now that UPC and ICC have kissed and made up, maybe the two will be coordinated.
FredK
Gold Member
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
Well there's something that makes sense.Mac said:
Tom_Fallon
Member
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
There are many ways to go here (or at least for someone like me to try to argue!) - we have the same discrepancy in Oregon between the occupant load in Chapter 10 vs 29. It would be nice if these were better coordinated; when code writers have bothered to figure out a chapter 10 load calc for specific uses (like exercise rooms), these (or even a lower value like other uses) should translate into chapter 29.
I have the amendments for Washington (Architect mostly practicing in Oregon). I believe 'gymnasium' is the closest use - however I don't think it REALLY applies if people are exercising individually - but if it is, I calculate 30 SF/occupant (per 2902.1) which brings us to 100 ppl or 50 men, 50 women, 2 men's, 2 women's required. BUT I would argue that the Chapter 10 occupant load could be used because that is really a worst case scenario (egress is much more important so I assume the code creators came to 50 SF/ppl because that is the worse case - I think Oregon allows this to be used). In the end this unfortunately does not help because we're still at 30 men, 30 women and need 2 men's, 2 women's fixtures. 4 fixtures seems reasonable for 3000 SF although 3 may be enough! So if it were my project I might try to argue that we fall under "assembly places....where fixture use is not limited to intermissions" AND argue to use the chapter 10 occupant calculation.JMG said:
There are many ways to go here (or at least for someone like me to try to argue!) - we have the same discrepancy in Oregon between the occupant load in Chapter 10 vs 29. It would be nice if these were better coordinated; when code writers have bothered to figure out a chapter 10 load calc for specific uses (like exercise rooms), these (or even a lower value like other uses) should translate into chapter 29.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: # of plumbing fixtures
Seriously!
Go back to the initial condition: First, WA amended the code. Second, it's the Uniform Plumbing Code and not the IPC.
The IPC uses the same occupant load factors. The UPC reinvents them.
Get the state to adopt the IPC and leave it unamended and it will probably be closer to what they have with their amended code.
Seriously!
Go back to the initial condition: First, WA amended the code. Second, it's the Uniform Plumbing Code and not the IPC.
The IPC uses the same occupant load factors. The UPC reinvents them.
Get the state to adopt the IPC and leave it unamended and it will probably be closer to what they have with their amended code.