I posted this on wrong forum

[lahpe65]

Has to do with IBC Importance factor

I would appreciate some input here.

IBC Table 1604.5 Category III "structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life...but not limited:"

and then it lists various occupant loads. I have an occupant load of 128. As far as I am concerned, this is a substantial loss of human life and falls into the "but not limited to" category, therefore, falling into category III.

Any input?

 

[jike]

I agree!

If you choose the lower catagory, I can just invision a lawyer or plan checker being able to rip you to shreds. "What do you mean it is not a hazard to human life....."

Maybe, I am just being paranoid....

Is it just a bad choice of wording or is that really what was meant?

 

[LPPE]

Devil's Advocate - So then where do you put the cutoff point as to how many people are OK to die?

My personal opinion is that 1 death is 1 too many. So now do you really want to design everything to category III, including parking garages and barns?

Apparently, people wiser than us have put the limits as whats acceptable in the code. If a lawyer is asking me questions, my response would be "I dont write the code, I just follow it."

 

[lahpe65]

The "but not limited to" part of the Code is where the question comes up. I think 128 people is significant.

 

[whyun]

Owners probably do not wish to PAY for the impact of designing everything to category III. The code merely picked a number to identify the dividing line between the categories. It is NOT implying that 128 people is not significant. Yes, wording in the code can use improvement but take it for what its worth.

It is entirely up to the engineer to design above and beyond the code minimum requirements. However, owner may not appreciate it if he finds out the design is too conservative.

 

[SmithJ]

With a 128 occupant load, I would design for category I. Is there some other reason why you are considering a higher category? With Respect To Occupant Load, Category II is for occupancies of 300 and more. You are definitely below this threshold so why push yourself into a higher category if you do not have to.

Remember, the code is strewn with safeguards and safety factors. It is already conservative. There is no need to add extra conservatism if it's not required.

 

[lahpe65]

Agreed on all points. Wording could be improved.