• 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

type of constructoin Chapter 6

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Mark--

I agree with you, as do many other plans reviewers. But this discussion is showing that there is more than one way to interpret this part of the code, at least during plans review and there are good arguments to support both views. For example, the IBC plans review forms (page 5) require the reviewer to go through a height and area calculation to determine the minimum allowable construction type for a building. Then, the form refers to Section 602.1.1 which states that the reviewer shall not require the construction to conform to the details of a type of construction higher than that type which meets the minimum requirements based on occupancy.

Then, in seeming contradiction to what is written in 602.1.1, the commentary to 602.1.1 says that “in a normal situation, the design professional has indentified the construction classification on the drawing. When this assignment has not been made, the building official is placed in a position of verifying the designer’s intent and selecting the least-restrictive type that will meet all of the code requirements.”

So, what is the IBC construction type that is listed on the C of O?

I have never advised the licensed design professional to provide a lower level of safety than what is shown on the submitted drawings. I usually list the construction type required by calculation, but if the licensed design professional has designated a more restrictive type, I list that one.
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

brudgers, I can't argue with what you wrote, but I don't completely agree.

If built as 2a, it's not reasonable to determine if something covered up during construction of phase I didn't qualify as 2a. It's virtually impossible to prove without a doubt the original construction was 2a. It's just not possible to see what's covered up. The design professional and the plans reviewer have to assume everything was properly built per the permit set. Now I'm not saying if something was added after the original construction, yes, you may have to uncover to prove it's okay.

Now, if I say it's 2a and plans reviewer looks over the drawings and marks them up saying construction type is type V because type V works, that's just totally wrong. If that's marked on the permit set, the plans examiner just screwed me when it comes to phase II. Again the plans examinar can't require a more restrictive construction type than type V, but the design professional can (and I'm sticking to it).
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

MarkRandall said:
brudgers, I can't argue with what you wrote, but I don't completely agree. If built as 2a, it's not reasonable to determine if something covered up during construction of phase I didn't qualify as 2a. It's virtually impossible to prove without a doubt the original construction was 2a. It's just not possible to see what's covered up. The design professional and the plans reviewer have to assume everything was properly built per the permit set. Now I'm not saying if something was added after the original construction, yes, you may have to uncover to prove it's okay.

Now, if I say it's 2a and plans reviewer looks over the drawings and marks them up saying construction type is type V because type V works, that's just totally wrong. If that's marked on the permit set, the plans examiner just screwed me when it comes to phase II. Again the plans examinar can't require a more restrictive construction type than type V, but the design professional can (and I'm sticking to it).
Click to expand...
What I'm getting at is that once a building is CO'd construction type isn't relevant until some change is proposed.

At that time, the architect needs to determine the type of construction based on the current code, what is actually present in the field, and the Owner's requirements.

Translating the construction type of a building constructed under an earlier type into an IBC construction type is not sufficient.

For example, you can't just reclassify an SBC Type V into an IBC Type III.

SBC Type V construction required a 1,2, or 3 hour exterior bearing wall depending on horizontal separation. The analogous IBC Type III requires exterior bearing walls to be 2 hour protected regardless of separation.

There are all sorts of gaps which the architect must address.

I'm not suggesting that the previous documents aren't should not be a part of the architect's investigation, only that what got built is the starting point, not the previous code analysis..
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Looks like you were referring to changes in code (legacy codes to IBC). I really haven't had to look to closely there. IBC is so close to old UBC, I doubt there is much conflict. I have never used any other legacy codes.

For the most part, it seems IBC is slightly less stringent than legacy codes (except for sprinkler requirements) based on combining the three major codes prior to IBC.

I haven't had to deal with the situation Brudgers describes, but I can see that could get messy. For example: you have a type V SBC and converting that to IBC type III, but if you had 1 hour exterior walls in SBC, it doesn't comply with IBC type III. What do you do if you try to then call it IBC Type Va, but there's not enough allowable area for the building? I seem to recall that when the codes were combine in IBC, they tried really hard to make so all three codes so they transferred over to IBC classification without issues like this, but maybe there are times when it just doesn't work, but I hope not.
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

My comment (second on the list) was based on the fact that there is no mention in the OP how long ago the building was built.

The OP states that it's a IIA. If it was built last year, then it is no doubt a IIA for a reason that would be current, therefore no analysis required. If it was built 25 years ago, then I suppose it could have a current analysis performed to see if it could be reclassed.

The point...there is not enough info. One assumes it is a very old building, and another a newer building. Who's right?
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Glennman CBO said:
My comment (second on the list) was based on the fact that there is no mention in the OP how long ago the building was built.The OP states that it's a IIA. If it was built last year, then it is no doubt a IIA for a reason that would be current, therefore no analysis required. If it was built 25 years ago, then I suppose it could have a current analysis performed to see if it could be reclassed.

The point...there is not enough info. One assumes it is a very old building, and another a newer building. Who's right?
Click to expand...
Even if it was built last year, analysis would still be required.

The IBC makes fire ratings not only dependent on construction type but also on occupancy...the Mensa team managed to make IIA mean more than one thing.
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Glennman CBO said:
Yes, required, but only if they want to change it.
Click to expand...
Suppose you have a building with type VA construction of occupancy B and which has exterior walls within 10 feet of the property line.

If you put an M occupancy in, those exterior walls need to be uprated to two hours...see Table 602.

Ironically, they need to be uprated even if you don't require the analysis.

In it's unending quest to reinvent the wheel in triangular form , the IBC manages to throw out a century of established practice in order to make each construction type's requirements vary based on occupancy.
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

I really dislike this section and I believe it re-enforces brudgers position that an analysis needs to be done by a design professional if you do not know the full history of a building.

Table 601 footnote

e. An approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 shall be allowed to be substituted for 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction, provided such system is not otherwise required by other provisions of the code or used for an allowable area increase in accordance with Section 506.3 or an allowable height increase in accordance with Section 504.2. The 1-hour substitution for the fire resistance of exterior walls shall not be permitted.
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

That's kind of what fire walls are for..

I understand why the designer classifies it as construction higher than necessary (sometimes it's for insurance).

Regardless of what the plans examiner may classify it as, if it was built per plan (which should have been inspected) and it could have been a 2B building.. and the first building and addition is still within the guidelines of 2B, the type of construction can be changed.

You can always build above and beyond.. the Code is the minimum.
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

When in doubt, consult code text:

2006 IBC:

602.1 General.

Buildings and structures erected or to be erected, altered or extended in height or area shall be classified in one of the five construction types defined in Sections 602.2 through 602.5. The building elements shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than that specified in Table 601 and exterior walls shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than that specified in Table 602.

602.1.1 Minimum requirements.

A building or portion thereof shall not be required to conform to the details of a type of construction higher than that type, which meets the minimum requirements based on occupancy even though certain features of such a building actually conform to a higher type of construction.

3401.2 Maintenance.

Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed. The owner or the owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine compliance with this subsection, the building official shall have the authority to require a building or structure to be reinspected. The requirements of this chapter shall not provide the basis for removal or abrogation of fire protection and safety systems and devices in existing structures.

3403.3 Nonstructural.

Nonstructural alterations or repairs to an existing building or structure are permitted to be made of the same materials of which the building or structure is constructed, provided that they do not adversely affect any structural member or the fire-resistance rating of any part of the building or structure.

You have to prove to me that the entire building could be built under today's code as a 5B. Maybe you can, but you have to prove it to me.

If I start with a 2A, and want to build 5B, does that not "...adversely affect...the fire-resistance rating of any part of the building or structure"? If I had records showing the building was a 5B, and they wanted to build 2A, I say no problem. The other way around...evaluation needed.
 
Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

I don't write the code..

I enforce the code. .which is a minimum code..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top