# Upclassifying F Occupancies



## brudgers (Mar 28, 2011)

Suppose you had a beverage plant which would be F2. Would you allow it to be classified as the more restrictive F1?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 28, 2011)

Simple answer yes


----------



## Mech (Mar 28, 2011)

If it's a diet coke plant with a stockpile of mentos inside, then F-1 might be a requirement.  :lol:

Off the top of my head, I don't see why it couldn't be an F-1. I just sent plans in for review, under the 2009 codes, to use an existing F-1 building to house a new F-2 usage.


----------



## cda (Mar 28, 2011)

1 as long as they meet minimum for what they are actualy doing

2 if they design to higher standard, then they need to meet all the requirements if that higher standard, not pick and chose


----------



## jpranch (Mar 28, 2011)

cda said:
			
		

> 1 as long as they meet minimum for what they are actualy doing2 if they design to higher standard, then they need to meet all the requirements if that higher standard, not pick and chose


Not sure about that. Or perhaps to eliminate the pick & choose I classify it as S2 and just build above that? brudges, how about a little more information? Sure would help.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 28, 2011)

I would allow them design to any standard as long as it meets the minimum requirements of their actual occupancy/use, in this case an F-2.  This is often done when owners project future additions, or changes in use (i.e., a tenant strip mall), and are concerned about their allowable areas, or would like to have non-separated occupancies and will design to the most restrictive.  Some designers will even put in 1-hr tenant separation walls when no separation is required.

The only time we would request an F-2 to be designed to a higher standard is when the designer/owner would like that reflected on their occupancy certificate.

Hope this helped.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 28, 2011)

Yes; it is the other way around I would have a problem.


----------



## cda (Mar 28, 2011)

Jpranch

Where did I go wrong in life????

 Originally Posted by cda

1 as long as they meet minimum for what they are actualy doing

2 if they design to higher standard, then they need to meet all the requirements if that higher standard, not pick and chose

Not sure about that. Or perhaps to eliminate the pick & choose I classify it as S2 and just build above that? brudges, how about a little more information? Sure would help.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 28, 2011)

cda, it wasn't you who went wrong in life. It was me. Best this story told over a camp fire and picket line. Ya know it is rare when you get anything above minimum code.

Papio Bldg Dept, really liked your post. I guess I'm just so used to minimum design with no thought for the future. Seems to be the way.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 28, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> Yes; it is the other way around I would have a problem.


Run, it's contagious.

Thanks


----------



## Frank (Mar 29, 2011)

What kind of bottles/cans are they using?

If plastic, then F-1 is the required classification for handling the empty bottles and S-1 for storing the empty bottles.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 29, 2011)

Beverage manufacturing is just a fictitious example used to illuminate my question - the use case is different.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 29, 2011)

Submit a code analysis showing me compliance for the proposed change of occupancy, and I'll let you change anything to anything.


----------



## Frank (Mar 29, 2011)

F-2 uses are permitted in buildings constructed to F-1 requirements, but not the other way around.

You can store steel pipe in an S-1 warehouse designed to store plastic pipe.


----------



## ara4help (Mar 30, 2011)

> Suppose you had a beverage plant which would be F2. Would you allow it to be classified as the more restrictive F1?


Even if F1 is classified as moderate-hazard and F2 as low-hazard, F1 is not necessarily always more restrictive than F2. For example F1 does not require separation from B or M occupancy groups, while F2 requires the separation (Table 508.3.3). If the space function falls under F2 occupancy category then you shall call it F2. The “higher standard” approach would be acceptable if your space complies with all the Building Code Sections for Both F1 and F2 occupancy groups, not only F1.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2011)

The fire separation between F2 and B is to protect the low hazard F2 from the moderate hazard B.

Not vice versa.


----------



## ara4help (Mar 31, 2011)

> The fire separation between F2 and B is to protect the low hazard F2 from the moderate hazard B.Not vice versa.


I do understand the purpose of separation between F2 and B or M. That’s why I call F2 more restrictive (needs better protection) than F1. My point is that if you are brewing in one space (F2) and selling at adjacent space (M), then you need the separation between F2 and M. You can’t just rename the actual F2 occupancy group to F1 to get rid of the separation.

And if it’s OK for beer producing (F2) just to show compliance with F1 requirements and have no separation between brewing and sales (M) or offices (B), then why can’t we call the beer producing "H1 occupancy" (showing compliance with H1 requirements-"designed with higher standards" ) and locate the brewing right within H1 explosives’ building (since no separation required between H1 and H1)?

For non- separated occupancies you may use provisions of 508.3.2 if applicable, but you shouldn't assign incorrect occupancy group to the space. After all you need the correct occupancy group that reflects the correct function of the space shown on the Certificate of occupancy.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 31, 2011)

A space designed as F2 requires protection from a space designed as B because it may be constructed with a larger area and less fire resistance than one constructed as F1 (see tables 503,  602, 705.4, and 706.3.9) and without sprinklers regardless of size allowed by table 503 (see section 903.2).

You are misunderstanding the reason for the protection of F2 from B.


----------



## ara4help (Mar 31, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> A space designed as F2 requires protection from a space designed as B because it may be constructed with a larger area and less fire resistance than one constructed as F1 (see tables 503,  602, 705.4, and 706.3.9) and without sprinklers regardless of size allowed by table 503 (see section 903.2).You are misunderstanding the reason for the protection of F2 from B.


So would you say that it’s OK to produce beer and explosives within the same building as long as entire building complies with H1 occupancy requirements?

If the answer is yes then the next question will be about A and H occupancies.


----------



## TimNY (Mar 31, 2011)

I would say the occupancy is classified according to use, not what they would like you to classify it as.

If they are making bricks, it's an F-2.  They can do whatever they like  beyond the minimum requirements of an F-2, it doesn't change the fact  that the space is occupied as an F-2. They can implement all of the code requirements for an F-1, if they would like.

If at some point they are going to start building boats, the space would  be evaluated at that time under the EBC as a change of use.

50 years from now the requirements for a F-1 may be more stringent.   Just because they met the requirements of F-1 when they constructed does  not mean they are a shoe in.  If it has been occupied as an F-2, moving  to F-1 is a change of use and is treated as such.

Put differently, if I have an S storage building housing bicycles, I'm  not going to classify it as H because they meet all of the H  requirements.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 31, 2011)

Suppose they submitted a bicycle storage facility as H with the argument that they just wanted to be safe because of their concern about all the grease in the hubs?


----------



## TimNY (Apr 1, 2011)

Grease in hubs does not make an H.  They are free to provide all the safety measures they would like that are over and above the true classification of the occupancy.

Do you know the reasoning behind their interest in doing this?

If there was a major revision in the next code cycle that would require more stringent standards for an F-1, I don't think I'd be inclined to allow them to upclassify to an F-1 now just to avoid the expense of a change of occupancy later.  That is my thinking for just classifying everything as what it is, and not what they would like it to be.


----------



## rktect 1 (Apr 1, 2011)

Suppose you had an F-1 and over time, unbeknownst to the city, they exceeded the max. amount of  hazardous material for a control area.  By about 8 times.....  And someone they fired called an organization to inform them of the issues.

Well, that's my nightmare this week.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 1, 2011)

The exercise is hypothetical - sort of.

I have a proposal out on a project where the issue may be relevant to the code analysis.

As an aside, suppose a beverage facility stated that the reason for F1 is that they were considering the possibility of manufacturing their own wooden kegs onsite and wanted the F1 classification in order to avoid future problems?


----------



## TimNY (Apr 1, 2011)

I would support their initiative to provide all the building code requirements of an F1 in anticipation that they may convert from their F2 use in the future.

If and when they do convert, they should apply for a change of occupancy, which should be ministerial.


----------

