Are process structures exempt from IBC code? 4

[Z2Z]

A proposed structure is inside fence of a refinery. Does state officials have authority to enforce the structure comply with IBC code?

 

[JStephen]

That depends. To my knowledge, they're not exempted. But there's not always a building code to apply, either.
For example, in Texas, the state-wide building code applies to "commercial buildings" only. So if a plant is not in a city limits or county that has their own building code, there wouldn't be one that applied to it. There are still OSHA rules that do apply. Generally, as a matter of good practice, you'd want to comply with building code requirements for strength design, etc. I would think the refinery people would know if they do or don't have to get city building permits to do anything.

 

[r13]

I think it depends on the requirement from the owner (refinery), which shall have documents stating permitting and design codes. For minor addition, rehabilitation works of a large entity, the state and IBC often are out of the picture. Rather, OSHA rules are deemed more important. So, check with the owner's engineering department, or the person in charge of that matters.

 

[Devstruct]

I have worked in the industrial sector for years, and have rarely needed to stamp drawings.

I believe it varies slightly state by state, but in general there is an 'industrial exemption'.
This allows powerplants, or refineries to engineer their processes however they see fit, and by extension the support structures.

All that said, it does not mean the structures are not designed to the IBC or other codes. It just means we can use things like ships ladders instead of 7-11 stairs.

 

[SWComposites]

One could call the relevant state officials and ask them

 

[WARose]

Not to my knowledge. (And I have designed a lot of process buildings.) Can't think of one where we didn't get a permit for. (Prior to construction.)

 

[PropertyGuy67]

Think this through for a minute, and you'll get your answer. Hint: where in the IBC does it address stanchions for a pipe rack. Or even the pipe rack itself.

 

[r13]

Each industry has its own standards (oil/gas, refinery. steel mill, power plants...). Depends on its locality, it will specify a list of codes and standards to follow, and permits applications and regulations requirements. Always ask the owner to provide the standards when deal with such entities.

 

[dauwerda]

Whether a structure needs to comply to the IBC as a minimum is not up to the owner or the industry. It is up to the local jurisdiction (which may be at a city, county, or state level). Some of these jurisdictions do require permitting, plan and calc review, and inspections. Some don't require anything (or have a legally adopted code), and many fall in between these two extremes.
Keep in mind, the IBC is not enforcible unless it has been adopted into law by the local jurisdiction. When adopted, most jurisdictions will also make certain amendments, deletions, and additions to the code. Some will define what it is and isn't applicable to.

So, the answer to your question is, it depends on the location of your project. Call the local building authority to see what they require.

OSHA is a federal code (part of the code of federal regulations), so it is enforcible everywhere in the US.

 

[Rabbit12]

All the oil and gas clients that I've worked for had there own set of standards. I think everyone referenced the standards referenced in the IBC (ASCE7, AISC 360, ACI 318, etc.). So while it might not have reference IBC specifically, it might as well have.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I agree with what Rabit12 said.... Everyone who works in the petrochem industry tries to base their standards off of the IBC, ASCE, AISC, ACI, et cetera.

Also, there are many engineers in the heavy industrial sector that are on code committees in an attempt to make them more friendly to non-building structures.

With respect to dauwerda comments, I have worked on a number of heavy industrial projects, and the ones in the US all went through the permitting process with the local authority based off of IBC or UBC.

 

[JLNJ]

We have had this discussion many times. In the past, most jurisdictions didn't pay much attention to what went on inside an industrial facility. More and more we see the AHJ taking interest.

2006 IBC Section 101.2

"The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures."

This is a pretty broad reach where the IBC is adopted by the State.

 

[r13]

IBC still needs to gain acceptance from the industry mammoth. I think the main obstacle is the conservatism, industry design usually carry out with higher safety factors than the general institutional/commercial/residential world like to accept. Also, IBC could be unpractical for buildings/structures house/support equipment and machinery, but having many special needs/concerns. Often times, the local jurisdiction just lack the technical expertise to weigh into industry designs.

 

[RPMG]

The state has authority because it's adopted. Unless, apparently, you're from 3rd world Texas. They should put an asterisk on the map below.

 

[JoelTXCive]

I'm in Texas and the firm I work for does lots of process type facilities like municipal wastewater treatment plants and pump stations. These facilities are closed to the public and owned by quasi-government agencies. (We have municipal utility districts (MUDs) and other agencies that have taxing authority, but aren't truly governmental entities)

We effectively design these structures to IBC 2015, but we don't write that on the plans. We use OSHA versus IBC for stairs and guardrails, but all the loading values are from ASCE/IBC. All the designs follow AISC, ACI & NDS design manuals. My thought is that if there is ever a lawsuit, then the courts and a jury will compare our design to IBC regardless since it is the only available standard out there.

Also........sidenote.....Texas is the wild west and we love it! The state did not formally adopt any building code at all until 2000.

 

[Ron]

Keep in mind that as a Professional Engineer you have a standard of care to meet. Most often that standard of care is defined by the practice of other engineers under the prevailing building code. Don't go out on a limb with standard of care. From a liability perspective, it is more important than rote following of the building code.

 

[charliealphabravo]

I seem to remember the wording in a FL county ordinance that basically said if the industrial facility had an in-house fire department then they were exempt from the code. It is unfortunate that at locations where the risk is high the oversight is minimal.

2006 IBC Section 101.2

"The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures."

This has been in the code for some time but I have always had a problem with it. It is probably overreaching and it is not really enforceable and the body of the code does not really read like a complete or consistent implementation of this. There are many exceptions to the point that portions of the statement become meaningless. I think it more represents an attempt to gain a foothold for precedent where there is none and would not stand up to a statutorial challenge. And yet there it is.

 

[Sawbux]

I have always provided a healthy factor of safety on industrial structures to account for deflections/vibrations, future additions and possible corrosion over the life of the facility. For chemical areas, always used steel members 3/8" or greater in thickness - for corrosion allowance.

 

[EDub24]

I work in the water/wastewater industry and a majority of the time the owners (usually cities, districts or agencies) don't answer to the building department so technically we aren't required to design to the IBC unless the client requests it. With that said we always design to the IBC and the relevant codes. I can't imagine why someone wouldn't do that even if it's allowed unless they are seriously lacking in the ethics department...

 

[dauwerda]

With that said we always design to the IBC and the relevant codes. I can't imagine why someone wouldn't do that even if it's allowed unless they are seriously lacking in the ethics department...

Typically this question arises with non-structural requirements that are in the IBC. Such as, the IBC essentially requires that all (non-residential) stairs have a max rise of 7" and a min run of 11", OSHA allows up to a 10" rise and a 10" run. In industrial facilities, this can be a huge difference in the cost and size of a structure as it takes a much larger footprint to fit the "IBC compliant" stairs (typically, its the footprint that is the issue). I don't see wanting to follow OSHA requirements but not IBC requirements as a lack of ethics in this case.

The real issue is that the IBC has been written for commercial structures (essentially) and has started overreaching, claiming to be applicable/required for anything that can be defined as a structure,

101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to
the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement,
repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance,
removal and demolition of every building or
structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such
buildings or structures.

That's fine from a strictly structural (strength) perspective, but the IBC has so many other requirements in it that simply don't fit with many industrial type structures. The stair example above being one, energy efficiency requirements being another.