VEBC Ch. 14 - not constructed in accordance with the VCC

[vanuber]

I work in Virginia and we use the VEBC Chapter 14 Compliance Alternative frequently on adaptive reuse projects. There are sections of Chapter 14 that allow assemblies that are “not constructed in accordance” with the VCC.

Also, see the Ch. 14 opening section 1401.1 where “the provisions of this chapter are intended to maintain or increase the current degree of public safety, health, and general welfare in existing buildings or structures, while permitting changes of occupancy without requiring full compliance with Chapter 7, except where compliance with other provisions of this code is specifically required in this chapter”.

Consider the following sections:

- Section 1403.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations – There is a category for “fire partitions or floor assemblies with less than one-hour fire resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with Section 708 or 711 of the VCC, respectively.”
- Section 1403.5 Corridor Wall Values – There is a category for “less than one-hour fire resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with Section 708.4 of the VCC.”
- Section 1403.6 Vertical Opening Protection Value – There is a category for “less than one-hour.”

Consider the following design proposals that might comply with the categories above:

- Example 1 – A new ½-hour rated dwelling unit separation wall extends from the existing floor to the underside of the existing floor/ceiling assembly above. However, the existing floor/ceiling assembly is unrated, which does not comply with VCC 708.4 or VCC 711.2.4.3.
- Example 2 – A new ½-hour rated corridor wall extends from the existing floor to the underside of the existing floor/ceiling assembly above. However, the existing floor/ceiling assembly is unrated, which does not comply with VCC 708.4.
- Example 3 – A new stair between two existing floors is designed such that the stair is open/exposed on the first floor but includes a 1-hour fire rated enclosure and 45-minute door on the second floor. It is proposed that this design provides a less than 1-hour vertical opening protection value.

I have failed to find good commentary on the definition of “less than one-hour fire resistance rating” or “not constructed in accordance” with the VCC. A simple interpretation would include use of 30-min, or similar less than 1-hour, rated horizontal and vertical assemblies. But the notes about non-compliance with VCC 708 and 711 confuse the matter as there seems to be leeway about continuous enclosures or construction methods that deviate from the VCC. The phrase “not constructed in accordance” suggests some grey area between VCC compliance and non-protected that is open to interpretation.

Do you have any commentary explaining this or personal interpretations?

 

[Paul Sweet]

The way I understand it is that all new construction must comply with the Virginia Construction Code (IBC with Va. amendments). Existing construction that doesn't meet the VCC is penalized a certain number of points. They may remain if there are enough other items that exceed VCC requirements to make up for the deficit and the mandatory safety score. If a building falls short of the mandatory safety score then enough of the existing elements that fall shore need ot be upgraded.

 

[RLGA]

Also, see the Ch. 14 opening section 1401.1 where “the provisions of this chapter are intended to maintain or increase the current degree of public safety, health, and general welfare in existing buildings or structures, while permitting changes of occupancy without requiring full compliance with Chapter 7, except where compliance with other provisions of this code is specifically required in this chapter”.

In this instance, it is referring to Chapter 7 of the VEBC--not the VCC. When referencing content from other codes, the VEBC identified the referenced code along with the specific chapter, section, or table reference.

 

[vanuber]

In this instance, it is referring to Chapter 7 of the VEBC--not the VCC. When referencing content from other codes, the VEBC identified the referenced code along with the specific chapter, section, or table reference.

Ha, good catch. I had VCC chapter 7 on the brain.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Do you have any commentary explaining this or personal interpretations?

One of our former state building inspectors hated the IEBC and routinely advised architects (of which he was one) NOT to use it. Consequently, building officials around this state have always steered clear of trying to understand it, and especially the performance method of IEBC compliance (which is Chapter 14 in your VEBC and Chapter 14 in the 2021 IEBC).

It's important to remember that the goal of the IEBC is to allow old buildings which do not comply with current codes, and which can never be brought into full compliance with current codes, to remain in use as long as they provide some minimum level of safety. This is demonstrated through the point scoring system. Each of the various aspects of safety in the building is evaluated and assigned a value. The values are totaled up. If the total is equal to or greater than the mandated minimums in the three categories, the building is considered to be safe enough to allow it to be occupied.

You can't take just one item out of the list and drive yourself nuts over trying to force that item to comply. It's a given that some items probably won't comply, but if you can alter other elements such that they rate better than the minimum score, the totals may still exceed the minimums, and that's ALL that matters.

I don't understand how you can be confused over what "less than 1-hour" means. It means exactly what it says. 30 minutes is less than 1-hour. So you look at Table 1403.4. The construction you describe is category b, so on the worksheet you enter a value of -2 (assuming an R use group classification).

I have failed to find good commentary on the definition of “less than one-hour fire resistance rating” or “not constructed in accordance” with the VCC. A simple interpretation would include use of 30-min, or similar less than 1-hour, rated horizontal and vertical assemblies. But the notes about non-compliance with VCC 708 and 711 confuse the matter as there seems to be leeway about continuous enclosures or construction methods that deviate from the VCC. The phrase “not constructed in accordance” suggests some grey area between VCC compliance and non-protected that is open to interpretation.

As for construction that pre-dates what we are accustomed to seeing today, be sure you go to the back of the IEBC (or the VEBC, in your care) and take a hard look at Resource A - Guidelines on Fire Ratings of Archaic Materials and Assemblies. This has been around for decades and, at various times, has been published or distributed by HUD, by the NFPA, and by other organizations as well. It can be used to calculate the equivalent fire-resistance ratings of "archaic" building materials and systems, based on the ten rules spelled out at the start of Resource A: Harmathy's Ten Rules. The Cliff's Notes version of Harmathy's Ten Rules is that "(a) Some of something that resists fire is better than nothing, and (b) if something is good at resisting fire, more of it is better."

So you can use the information in Resource A to calculate fire-resistance ratings for construction that isn't covered in our current codes, and you can use this to justify the ratings you assign in the various categories on the points system worksheet.

Getting an existing building project approved based on Chapter 14 is not for the faint of heart. The design professional has to honestly and objectively look at each and every item covered in the worksheet and assign the values. Assuming you come up with a passing score, you then have to write up a narrative that explains to the code official how you arrived at your ratings. If you don't provide it, if he's doing his job the code official should ask for it, so you might as well be prepared. Years ago, I reviewed one that gave me the plan and a worksheet with a score significantly better than the minimum, but no explanation. The building was a firetrap, and everyone knew it. When I went through a fresh, blank worksheet and entered what I thought were honest numbers, it was so far short of passing that it was laughable. I knew the architect and had once worked with him in the same office. I called him up and asked how he had arrived at his numbers. He admitted that he had no idea how to do the analysis but a friend of his had told him he needed a score higher than the mandatory minimum -- so he picked numbers that added up to better than the minimum.

That's not how it works. But the underlying premise is that Chapter 14 is for buildings that probably can't be made to comply using either the Prescriptive Method or the Work Area Method. Don't get hung up on one of the categories. Go through the full analysis and see if you pass, or how close you are. If you need a couple of points -- look at the building and see where you can do something to increase a score in some category by a point or two.

Conversely, if you can do the project using the Prescriptive Method or the Work Area Method, it's probably going to be easier and use up less time than going through the Performance Method analysis.

 

[vanuber]

One of our former state building inspectors hated the IEBC and routinely advised architects (of which he was one) NOT to use it. Consequently, building officials around this state have always steered clear of trying to understand it, and especially the performance method of IEBC compliance (which is Chapter 14 in your VEBC and Chapter 14 in the 2021 IEBC).

It's important to remember that the goal of the IEBC is to allow old buildings which do not comply with current codes, and which can never be brought into full compliance with current codes, to remain in use as long as they provide some minimum level of safety. This is demonstrated through the point scoring system. Each of the various aspects of safety in the building is evaluated and assigned a value. The values are totaled up. If the total is equal to or greater than the mandated minimums in the three categories, the building is considered to be safe enough to allow it to be occupied.

You can't take just one item out of the list and drive yourself nuts over trying to force that item to comply. It's a given that some items probably won't comply, but if you can alter other elements such that they rate better than the minimum score, the totals may still exceed the minimums, and that's ALL that matters.

I don't understand how you can be confused over what "less than 1-hour" means. It means exactly what it says. 30 minutes is less than 1-hour. So you look at Table 1403.4. The construction you describe is category b, so on the worksheet you enter a value of -2 (assuming an R use group classification).



As for construction that pre-dates what we are accustomed to seeing today, be sure you go to the back of the IEBC (or the VEBC, in your care) and take a hard look at Resource A - Guidelines on Fire Ratings of Archaic Materials and Assemblies. This has been around for decades and, at various times, has been published or distributed by HUD, by the NFPA, and by other organizations as well. It can be used to calculate the equivalent fire-resistance ratings of "archaic" building materials and systems, based on the ten rules spelled out at the start of Resource A: Harmathy's Ten Rules. The Cliff's Notes version of Harmathy's Ten Rules is that "(a) Some of something that resists fire is better than nothing, and (b) if something is good at resisting fire, more of it is better."

So you can use the information in Resource A to calculate fire-resistance ratings for construction that isn't covered in our current codes, and you can use this to justify the ratings you assign in the various categories on the points system worksheet.

Getting an existing building project approved based on Chapter 14 is not for the faint of heart. The design professional has to honestly and objectively look at each and every item covered in the worksheet and assign the values. Assuming you come up with a passing score, you then have to write up a narrative that explains to the code official how you arrived at your ratings. If you don't provide it, if he's doing his job the code official should ask for it, so you might as well be prepared. Years ago, I reviewed one that gave me the plan and a worksheet with a score significantly better than the minimum, but no explanation. The building was a firetrap, and everyone knew it. When I went through a fresh, blank worksheet and entered what I thought were honest numbers, it was so far short of passing that it was laughable. I knew the architect and had once worked with him in the same office. I called him up and asked how he had arrived at his numbers. He admitted that he had no idea how to do the analysis but a friend of his had told him he needed a score higher than the mandatory minimum -- so he picked numbers that added up to better than the minimum.

That's not how it works. But the underlying premise is that Chapter 14 is for buildings that probably can't be made to comply using either the Prescriptive Method or the Work Area Method. Don't get hung up on one of the categories. Go through the full analysis and see if you pass, or how close you are. If you need a couple of points -- look at the building and see where you can do something to increase a score in some category by a point or two.

Conversely, if you can do the project using the Prescriptive Method or the Work Area Method, it's probably going to be easier and use up less time than going through the Performance Method analysis.

Hi and thanks for the response. You are spot on there… I know most building officials don't love Chapter 14. Many of them do not understand it and are not comfortable with the grey area it presents. We use it a lot and I think we understand it pretty well. On our adaptive reuse projects, we typically evaluate the building under both Chapter 14 (Performance Method) and Chapter 6/7 (Work Area Method) of the VEBC, or IEBC if you prefer. There are tradeoffs either way, but Chapter 14 can get you places that are otherwise not possible. For example, eliminating a sprinkler system in an assembly occupancy, which can save an owner $100K, while increasing fire safety in other less expensive ways. We always provide the building official with the full Chapter 14 section showing our calculations and notes. The code analysis on the drawings references all the Chapter 14 sections and the summary sheets are included in the set. Great reminder on Archaic Materials and Assemblies. We also use this often when evaluating fire ratings of existing construction.

Back to my original question... I think the Performance Method (Chapter 14) inherently has more grey area than the Prescriptive Method or Work Area Method. And while I agree with you that 30-minute partitions or similar qualify as "less than 1-hour" assemblies, my query ties back to my other question about "not constructed in accordance" with the VCC. Example 3 from above is a good case in point:

Example 3 – A new stair between two existing floors is designed such that the stair is open/exposed on the first floor but includes a 1-hour fire rated enclosure and 45-minute door on the second floor. It is proposed that this design provides a less than 1-hour vertical opening protection value.

This is a mix of 1-hour rated enclosure at the top of the stair and no enclosure at the floor below. Does this qualify as a “less than 1-hour” vertical opening protection value as defined by Ch. 14? It could be argued that it does. I would not consider it “unprotected.”

Maybe I am getting into minutia, and these things are best worked out on a project-by-project basis with the building official. However, a lot of building officials rely on the written word and struggle with interpretive solutions like this. What I am looking for is commentary on what the limits are for “not constructed in accordance” with the VCC. This seems to offer great leeway for interpretation and out-of-the-box solutions.

 

[vanuber]

Bumping this up. Does anyone else have thoughts? Thanks.