Waffle irons

[Sifu]

Hopefully someone has experience with a waffle house beyond scattered, smothered and covered. Struggling with whether a bank of waffle presses (irons?) are required under a type I hood. From what I can tell they would be medium duty (electric double sided griddle?), and as such would require them to be under a type I hood unless they meet the maximum effluent provisions of IMC 507.2. This is not a Waffle House, but a similar type of establishment. I have requested documentation as to that testing but am not confident I will get it. If anyone has experience with them I would appreciate if/how they were handled.

 

[ADAguy]

Are these fixed in place or moveable? automatic or manual units? products of combustion from overcooking might require sprinklers?

 

[Sifu]

Are these fixed in place or moveable? automatic or manual units? products of combustion from overcooking might require sprinklers?

No specs yet, but assuming fixed in a commercial kitchen. The building is sprinklered. All else appears to be good, just never done a waffle shop before. I found 3 other AHJ's that either list them specifically as light duty or allow up to 3 or 4 without a type I hood. This project has 3. FWIW I researched several commercial waffle irons and couldn't find any specifications that indicate effluent testing. I think they are OK, but figured I would give it a second to see other opinions and what the DP might come up with. I'm not a waffle iron expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once...and they had one without a hood! (I admit those waffles taste good, especially when they are free.)

 

[steveray]

The AHJ shouldn't be "listing" them as anything, the manufacturer should be rating the appliance. For electric stuff if it meets the 710B (i think it is) you are good, but I doubt it....did the one at the holiday inn make grease or smoke? Remember, this may only get them out of type 1, not type 2....

507.3 Type II hoods. Type II hoods shall be installed above
dishwashers and appliances that produce heat or moisture and
do not produce grease or smoke as a result of the cooking
process, except where the heat and moisture loads from such
appliances are incorporated into the HVAC system design or
into the design of a separate removal system.

 

[Sifu]

The "listing" I refer to was to list them on their list of light duty appliances, not a "listing" as we typically think of it. Maybe the vaguery of the "double sided griddle" part of the definition allows some AHJ's to consider them a light duty appliance. I do like the allowance for a limitation of the number of them not under the hood and wonder if that limit is based on effluent levels. A blanket light duty allowance could result in 10 waffle irons, which can produce 25 waffles/hr, which is a lot different than 2 appliances. I have asked for testing, but I'm not sure they can produce it, but I'll give it a few days. Gonna drop by a Waffle House today to see what they do, and talk with fire before I go any further.

 

[Sifu]

Steveray, I have been working on the air balance but sidelined my issue until it is determined that a type I or II is required. However, since you brought it up I will ask. IF the 3 waffle irons are not under any hood, as is their plan, then I must add the 100sf²/appliance to the kitchen area to determine the ventilation. Correct me if wrong, but I would use the total area to determine both the required exhaust (.7cfm/sf²) and the required outdoor air...correct?

 

[steveray]

Not sure I fully understand...Does this help?

The majority of occupancies listed in Table
403.3.1.1 are those in which the primary sources of air
contamination are the occupants themselves at various
everyday activities and also the contents of the
space. Table entries, such as warehouses, shipping/
receiving, repair garages and ice arenas address contaminants
that are related to processes or material
storage. When the parameter listed in the table for outdoor
air is based on cubic feet per minute per square
foot only [m3/(s  m2)], the anticipated contaminants in
the space are not people related and, therefore, the
contaminants do not depend on the occupant load. For
example, the required outdoor ventilation air for retail
stores, shipping and receiving is 0.12 cfm/ft2 [0.0006
m3/(s  m2)]. The anticipated contaminants are not people
related, but are associated with wares, stock, merchandise
and storage. Table 403.3.1.1 does not
attempt to address factory/industrial-type occupancies
because the possible number of contaminants would
be enormous, and the conditions in such occupancies
could be unpredictable. Also, for many potential contaminants,
the effect on humans is unknown.

 

[steveray]

I think I understand now and yes...you do both when there are numbers in both columns on the table...But the kitchen only has exhaust numbers...
Kitchens (cooking)b — — — 0.7


Consider a barber shop of 1,000
square feet with a zone air distribution effectiveness
(Ez) of one. It will require 500 cfm of exhaust ventilation
and 247.5 cfm of outdoor air. Rather than requiring a
total outdoor air rate of 747.5 cfm to satisfy both ventilation
needs (i.e., 247.5 cfm OA ventilation plus 500
cfm OA as makeup for the exhaust), the code intends
to allow the 247.5 cfm of outdoor air to serve as part of
the makeup air for the exhaust system with the remaining
252.5 cfm of makeup air being from some other
source.
The code intends to make sure that a minimum rate
of outdoor air is supplied to the space for occupant
well-being in the case where the makeup air for the
exhaust system is composed entirely of used ventilation
air transferred in from some other space.


But....W/O the type 2 hood 507.3 gets you the space ventilation Or appliance ventilation...Whichever is worse...Or the commentary is wrong...

If cooking appliances are provided and a Type II
hood is not required, the space where the appliances
are located must be provided with exhaust at a rate of
0.7 cfm/ft2 [0.0036 m3/(s  m2)], which is the same rate
as kitchens in Table 403.3.1.1. To apply this rate, each
individual appliance is considered as occupying 100
square feet (9.29 m2). The purpose of this requirement
is to provide a minimal amount of exhaust in the area
where one or more of these appliances are installed. If
cooking appliances are installed in a typical commercial
kitchen where the kitchen ventilation rate is being
applied to the whole space, then the area of the
kitchen would be used to determine the ventilation rate
without adding the additional 100 square feet for each
appliance. Note however, if the kitchen is small and
the number of appliances multiplied by 100 square
feet is greater than the area of the kitchen, the exhaust
rate for the kitchen must be based on the area calculated
in accordance with this section.

 

[Sifu]

I think I understand now and yes...you do both when there are numbers in both columns on the table...But the kitchen only has exhaust numbers...
Kitchens (cooking)b — — — 0.7


Consider a barber shop of 1,000
square feet with a zone air distribution effectiveness
(Ez) of one. It will require 500 cfm of exhaust ventilation
and 247.5 cfm of outdoor air. Rather than requiring a
total outdoor air rate of 747.5 cfm to satisfy both ventilation
needs (i.e., 247.5 cfm OA ventilation plus 500
cfm OA as makeup for the exhaust), the code intends
to allow the 247.5 cfm of outdoor air to serve as part of
the makeup air for the exhaust system with the remaining
252.5 cfm of makeup air being from some other
source.
The code intends to make sure that a minimum rate
of outdoor air is supplied to the space for occupant
well-being in the case where the makeup air for the
exhaust system is composed entirely of used ventilation
air transferred in from some other space.


But....W/O the type 2 hood 507.3 gets you the space ventilation Or appliance ventilation...Whichever is worse...Or the commentary is wrong...

If cooking appliances are provided and a Type II
hood is not required, the space where the appliances
are located must be provided with exhaust at a rate of
0.7 cfm/ft2 [0.0036 m3/(s  m2)], which is the same rate
as kitchens in Table 403.3.1.1. To apply this rate, each
individual appliance is considered as occupying 100
square feet (9.29 m2). The purpose of this requirement
is to provide a minimal amount of exhaust in the area
where one or more of these appliances are installed. If
cooking appliances are installed in a typical commercial
kitchen where the kitchen ventilation rate is being
applied to the whole space, then the area of the
kitchen would be used to determine the ventilation rate
without adding the additional 100 square feet for each
appliance. Note however, if the kitchen is small and
the number of appliances multiplied by 100 square
feet is greater than the area of the kitchen, the exhaust
rate for the kitchen must be based on the area calculated
in accordance with this section.

First, that is an excellent observation you found in the commentary that I didn't see. I was requiring a 400sf² kitchen area with 3 appliances not under a hood to be calculated at .7cfm/sf² for the 400sf² PLUS the 300sf² for the 3 appliances, so I stand happily corrected and will amend my comments. The code reads "such additional square footage shall be provided..." which sounds like it is added to the area but maybe I am reading too much into that. So now based on the commentary language I don't think the code is clear to use both or one or the other and since the commentary provides such definitive guidance I am going with it unless and until I am corrected. Of course, this hinges on whether to require a type I hood over the waffle irons, rendering the discussion moot. FYI, I just came from a Waffle House, and they had six waffle irons, nowhere near a hood...right or wrong (I could be wrong, they could have a tested appliance, or they could have been permitted by AMMR, or just ignored or missed). I called the DP to discuss this but since he has not returned the call I am leaning towards a type I hood or verification of testing. Pretty sure they will re-educate me as needed.

Second, I am using the 2018 IMC, which added a people outdoor air rate for commercial kitchens. I see that particular omission quite often because designers are accustomed to the previous editions of code which had only had a room rate. Some time ago I sought guidance on using outdoor air as makeup air in this very forum and the conclusion was the same as you came up with, so I am not concerned with that as long as they come up with the correct OA number. As of now they have a 900cfm UL710 hood, 800 cfm of makeup air and one additional 150cfm exhaust for the kitchen. They are about 150cfm air short for the .7 kitchen exhaust if I don't add in the 300sf² for the appliances (429sf² x .7 = 300cfm), and 100 cfm short on makeup for the hood. If they provide the required people OA for the kitchen I think they will be fine (is 20% off fine?) with a little negative pressure to keep smells in the kitchen area. I am requesting an air balance schedule as well to help my weak understanding of this.

Really appreciate the input.

Yes, I had an order of scattered, smothered, covered and peppered hash browns. Best investigation ever.

 

[steveray]

Good to know about the 18....we are going there in October....Far too many people don't enforce hood requirements from what I see....If they don't see a flame, they don't think hood....

 

[Sifu]

BTW, the language of IMC bothered me enough to submit an interpretation request to get a definitive answer about whether the additional sf² per appliance gets added to the floor area or whether the greater of the two gets used. I will update when I receive an answer.

 

[sergoodo]

Hopefully someone has experience with a waffle house beyond scattered, smothered and covered. Struggling with whether a bank of waffle presses (irons?) are required under a type I hood. From what I can tell they would be medium duty (electric double sided griddle?), and as such would require them to be under a type I hood unless they meet the maximum effluent provisions of IMC 507.2. This is not a Waffle House, but a similar type of establishment. I have requested documentation as to that testing but am not confident I will get it. If anyone has experience with them I would appreciate if/how they were handled.

Valid point; definitely people out there stupid enough to turn a waffle iron into a hazard. I see the question is what level of stupid cutoff building codes should protect.

 

[Sifu]

Valid point; definitely people out there stupid enough to turn a waffle iron into a hazard. I see the question is what level of stupid cutoff building codes should protect.

I have not seen any waffle iron fires yet but that doesn't mean there won't be. I just don't want the first one to be this job! And if it is, I want to have done my due diligence.

 

[Sifu]

UPDATE


FYI...I have always assumed the code in IMC 507.3 was deliberate, that is that if an appliance was not under a hood it must be calculated as adding 100sf² to the kitchen area for the purposes of ventilation and exhaust. However it was pointed out that commentary contradicted that. I asked for a staff opinion and after speaking with the M.E. at ICC and describing the quandary and inconsistency between the code and commentary it was determined that the additional area is additive, not the higher of the two amounts as the commentary opines. The opinion from ICC follows:

Following is the response to your question.

February 7, 2022

RE: 18 IMC 403.3.1.1 and 507.3

Q: Does the additional square footage for appliances not installed under a Type II hood get added to the floor area of the kitchen?

A: Yes, the floor area associated with the appliances not under Type II hoods is in addition to the actual floor area of the kitchen in accordance with Section 507.3. The ventilation requirement for commercial kitchens in Section 403.3.1.1 already includes a required exhaust rate of 0.7 cfm/ft². This requirement is applicable when all of the appliances are under Type I and Type II hoods. The very last sentence of Section 507.3 begins with the phrase, “Such additional square footage,” which intends for the aggregate floor area associated with appliances not under Type II hoods be summed with the actual square footage exhaust flow rate of the kitchen. Therefore, the exhaust required in accordance with Section 507.3 for the appliances that are not under Type II hoods is in addition to 0.70 cfm/ft² which is already required by Table 403.3.1.1.

 

[steveray]

Now they just need to fix the commentary....

 

[Sifu]

Now they just need to fix the commentary....

I am a fair weather friend to the commentary. I use it to help inform me of the intent, some of it is very good at that, but I always remember it is an opinion, just like all the other books written about code, by code experts. In the end the words are important...many hearings have spent hours over the use of the word "or", so I default to the deliberate nature and this one was so contradictory I had to ask the question. If you hadn't pointed that commentary section out I would never have known there might be an argument since I was already assuming I knew what the code was saying, but now I have saved myself the time when the argument eventually comes....so THANKS. BTW, in speaking with the ICC engineer, he said he spent some time since it was so contradictory but that it was a consensus that formed the staff opinion. I could ask for a written committee interpretation but by the time I got that I would forget my original question, and since the code seems clear I don't need it.

 

[steveray]

I am a fair weather friend to the commentary. I use it to help inform me of the intent, some of it is very good at that, but I always remember it is an opinion, just like all the other books written about code, by code experts. In the end the words are important...many hearings have spent hours over the use of the word "or", so I default to the deliberate nature and this one was so contradictory I had to ask the question. If you hadn't pointed that commentary section out I would never have known there might be an argument since I was already assuming I knew what the code was saying, but now I have saved myself the time when the argument eventually comes....so THANKS. BTW, in speaking with the ICC engineer, he said he spent some time since it was so contradictory but that it was a consensus that formed the staff opinion. I could ask for a written committee interpretation but by the time I got that I would forget my original question, and since the code seems clear I don't need it.

Yeah...It just makes it harder when I get a designer that looks at the commentary and says: "well they write the code!" So they must be right....

 

[mark handler]

In LA and San Diego
Cooking Equipment- All cooking equipment must be placed under an adequate ventilation hood. But, They have an exemption from mechanical ventilation for a maximum of 2 pieces of approved electric equipment that do not produce grease laden air such as a waffle iron, Panini grill, or convection oven 12 KW and under used for the baking of bakery products.

 

[Sifu]

In LA and San Diego
Cooking Equipment- All cooking equipment must be placed under an adequate ventilation hood. But, They have an exemption from mechanical ventilation for a maximum of 2 pieces of approved electric equipment that do not produce grease laden air such as a waffle iron, Panini grill, or convection oven 12 KW and under used for the baking of bakery products.

I found two AHJ's in CA that similar exceptions (don't remember where now). One allowed 3 waffle irons, the other 4. After that a type I hood was required.

 

[Genduct]

Just stumbled onto this interesting discussion

I can understand a gas fired Pizza Oven with "Flue Gas" as part of the "Heat and Moisture" But a Type 2 hood seems over kill for the amount of heat coming from electric waffle irons and the Min Moisture in the batter!

Seems like the extra heat 3.14 BTUs per VA ( aka watt) will not be a significant load when compare by fresh air needed for the People Load. Seems like more Sweat (latent load) from the customers than batter

Certainly, providing the extra energy use for an incidental load like this fly's in the face of Energy Conservation.

Perhaps the Code needs to be "Needs Tested"

I am looking forward to a response from the same thoughtful people who have contributed thus far

Best, Mike B

 

[Genduct]

How did I miss the 12 KW remark from the So Cal Guys DUUUHH

Thanks for that

 

[Sifu]

I think the code is generic by necessity. There are too many appliances to needs test them all so they categorize them, come up with a somewhat "one size fits all" set of requirements and moves on. Otherwise we would have even more pages to our hefty tome. The CA requirements were the most interesting to me. I wondered if they came up with those restrictions based on some sort of testing, or if like so many codes they are just numbers that they could all agree on.

 

[Genduct]

I think the code is generic by necessity. There are too many appliances to needs test them all so they categorize them, come up with a somewhat "one size fits all" set of requirements and moves on. Otherwise we would have even more pages to our hefty tome. The CA requirements were the most interesting to me. I wondered if they came up with those restrictions based on some sort of testing, or if like so many codes they are just numbers that they could all agree on.

Good Point, I think this is where we need to assert our Responsibility to discern the INTENT of the Code when the letter of the Code comes up short.
So 12KW if On is a 3Ton Cooling load. I am sure the diversity factor for it"s use makes this a low impact factor. Given our responsibility to Review and Not Design, I suspect that the Design Professionals' assertion that this is the case would allow us to approve this situation, (since we understand enough of the fundamentals to suspect the "TRUTH" of the situation.

What do you think? Am I on thin Ice here?

 

[Sifu]

In this case the DP did not provide the min. required ventilation for the area of the kitchen PLUS the 300sf² for the added appliances. However, since I was waiting on clarification about whether the additional appliances was additive or not, I did not issue a comment. Now that I have a better answer I will administer the code as it is written but I am not going back on a plan review to correct this minor issue. As for cooling loads, I don't do those and never will, the DP does that. The code says he must do that factoring in an additional 100 sf²/appliance.

Concerning the type I hood question, I think the code is generic in it's description of medium duty appliances, which could lead to the conclusion that a waffle iron is medium duty as a double sided griddle. However, I just can't bring myself to think of them as producing smoke or grease in an amount that would require type I exhaust. That is just my subjective decision, something I think the codes expect us to do from time time. I made the decision based on research of the product, other similar products, similar installations and of course other opinions.