# "Break Room" Occupancy Load Factor



## DTBarch

For the purposes of determining egress requirements, is there an IBC code-defined description/limit of when an office "break room" ceases to be calculated with the "business area" load factor and is subject to the "unconcentrated" assembly area load factor?  Some cities like the City of Boise have taken it upon themselves to establish official policy to assign size categories with 400sf or less, 401 to 749sf, and 750 and above with load factors of 100, 15, and "varied" respectively.  I've personally seen it interpreted to each end of the spectrum depending upon which AHJ is involved.  Curious to find out if I'm missing a direct link somewhere.  I'm sure my reliable pool of inspectors and plan reviewers in this forum can edify me here.  Thank you.


----------



## pyrguy

I have always called it a non-separated assembly use as long as it was under 750 sqft. I used the assembly load factor to count occupants. That was how the Fire Marshal and I did it when I worked in Georgia per state requirements. That kept it under 50 occupants and could be classified as business for other code purposes.


----------



## High Desert

Calculate the egress based on use. I have always used 15 sq. ft. for breakrooms.


----------



## fatboy

Ditto to the 15 sq. ft.


----------



## brudgers

pyrguy said:
			
		

> I have always called it a non-separated assembly use as long as it was under 750 sqft. I used the assembly load factor to count occupants. That was how the Fire Marshal and I did it when I worked in Georgia per state requirements. That kept it under 50 occupants and could be classified as business for other code purposes.


  Just be aware that the 750 square foot exception for occupancy separation of group A from B was removed from the 2009 IBC.   All hail the infinite wisdom of the IBC.


----------



## cda

that sounds good as above two posts, because I am seen two seater breakrooms, and seating for a bunch of people breakrooms


----------



## mark handler

brudgers said:
			
		

> Just be aware that the 750 square foot exception for occupancy separation of group A from B was removed from the 2009 IBC.  All hail the infinite wisdom of the IBC.


*Not*

http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/ibc/2009/icod_ibc_2009_3_sec003.htm

2009 International Building Code

SECTION 303 ASSEMBLY GROUP A

303.1 Assembly Group A.

Exceptions:

3. A room or space used for assembly purposes that is less than 750 square feet (70 m2) in area and accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as a Group B occupancy or as part of that occupancy.


----------



## mtlogcabin

2009 IBC

303.1 Assembly Group A.

Assembly Group A occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for the gathering of persons for purposes such as civic, social or religious functions; recreation, food or drink consumption or awaiting transportation.

Exceptions:

1. A building or tenant space used for assembly purposes with an occupant load of less than 50 persons shall be classified as a Group B occupancy.

2. A room or space used for assembly purposes with an occupant load of less than 50 persons and accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as a Group B occupancy or as part of that occupancy.

3. A room or space used for assembly purposes that is less than 750 square feet (70 m2) in area and accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as a Group B occupancy or as part of that occupancy.

4. Assembly areas that are accessory to Group E occupancies are not considered separate occupancies except when applying the assembly occupancy requirements of Chapter 11.

5. Accessory religious educational rooms and religious auditoriums with occupant loads of less than 100 are not considered separate occupancies.

2012 IBC

303.1.2 Small assembly spaces.

The following rooms and spaces shall not be classified as Assembly occupancies:1. A room or space used for assembly purposes with an _occupant load_ of less than 50 persons and accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as a Group B occupancy or as part of that occupancy.2. A room or space used for assembly purposes that is less than 750 square feet (70 m2) in area and accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as a Group B occupancy or as part of that occupancy.


----------



## Codegeek

I'm with Fatboy and High Desert, 15 square feet per person.


----------



## DTBarch

Sounds like Log Cabin and Mr. Handler are the winners this morning.  I appreciate the actual code trail gentlemen.


----------



## gbhammer

Codegeek said:
			
		

> I'm with Fatboy and High Desert, 15 square feet per person.


:agreeThey are absolutely correct. TABLE 1004.1.1 does not care what the use group is when determining the design occupant load for a space. You can say B or A or M doesn't matter.

Read the column heading of table 1004.1.1 it says "FUNCTION OF SPACE" not use group, but function. The function of a break room is to eat drink and assemble at unconcentrated tables and chairs.


----------



## gbhammer

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The function of a break room is to eat drink and assemble at unconcentrated tables and chairs.


You know some break rooms have a full kitchen and then you could argue that the function of that net square footage (for just the kitchen area) could be calculated at 200/per 1 occ.


----------



## globe trekker

gbhammer,

Where in the codes does it say that a Break Room is for eating / drinking?  :devil

.


----------



## gbhammer

globe trekker said:
			
		

> gbhammer,Where in the codes does it say that a Break Room is for eating / drinking?  :devil
> 
> .


Good Point GT.:inspctr Function is subjective and that is why I will some times ask the owner for a commentary on what a room will be utilized for.

Years ago I worked on the Marshal Faulk Foundation and his break room had a pool table a couple of video games and soda machine full of beer. There was only room for about 6 people in the whole space, and that would have put a cramp on the pool players. A plan reviewer would never have known that the space would be filled with all that stuff, if it had not been on the plans.


----------



## brudgers

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2009 IBC  3. A room or space used for assembly purposes that is less than 750 square feet (70 m2) in area and accessory to another occupancy shall be classified as a Group B occupancy or as part of that occupancy.


  Damn - They moved it on me.  Used to be at 508.3.1  As an accessory occupancy (which of course how  2009 classifies it).  IBC loves change for change sake.


----------



## mark handler

brudgers said:
			
		

> Damn - They moved it on me.  Used to be at 508.3.1  As an accessory occupancy (which of course how  2009 classifies it).  IBC loves change for change sake.


That's how they make money


----------



## Paul Sweet

A break room should be counted at one occupant per 15 SF for exits from the room, but at the normal factor for overall building exits & toilets.  Unless the break room serves more than one building, or occupants who work outside, you aren't bringing additional people into the building to use the break room, just moving them around within the building.


----------



## Frank

depends on how it is set up--

If it has tables and chairs as an eating area the tables and chairs area is figured at 15 sq ft per person for that area and total building occupant load--the same as conference rooms.

If it is just an area with fridge counter sink microwave coffee maker etc but no seating then it is figured at the 100 sq ft per person


----------



## gbhammer

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> A break room should be counted at one occupant per 15 SF for exits from the room, but at the normal factor for overall building exits & toilets.  Unless the break room serves more than one building, or occupants who work outside, you aren't bringing additional people into the building to use the break room, just moving them around within the building.


I agree in theory that the space is for the most part going to have nonsimultaneous occupancy. The problem is that the code is very clear on occupancy and plumbing fixtures, the occupants all count and the highest figure must be used. The only time that the actual occupant load can be used over the design occupant load is when the actual load exceeds the design occupant load.

2009 IPC commentary says “The code does not recognize a nonsimultaneous use concept for any building, as simultaneous use can easily occur.” :devil


----------



## gbhammer

Frank said:
			
		

> depends on how it is set up--If it has tables and chairs as an eating area the tables and chairs area is figured at 15 sq ft per person for that area and total building occupant load--the same as conference rooms.
> 
> If it is just an area with fridge counter sink microwave coffee maker etc but no seating then it is figured at the 100 sq ft per person


If the function of the space is to prepare food then 1@200 sq. ft.


----------



## righter101

mark handler said:
			
		

> That's how they make money


Boatloads of it.  Pretty good for a non-profit entity.


----------



## fatboy

"If the function of the space is to prepare food then 1@200 sq. ft."

I'm having trouble putting the commercial O.L. in any space in a office break room. Just did a final on a large office space for a factory, 12 microwaves in a space maybe as large as a residential kitchen, six each side in a bank, split by a two bowl sink. How many do you suppose are going to occupy that space during lunch? Just sayin.........


----------



## gbhammer

fatboy said:
			
		

> "If the function of the space is to prepare food then 1@200 sq. ft."I'm having trouble putting the commercial O.L. in any space in a office break room. Just did a final on a large office space for a factory, 12 microwaves in a space maybe as large as a residential kitchen, six each side in a bank, split by a two bowl sink. How many do you suppose are going to occupy that space during lunch? Just sayin.........


That is not a kitchen where some one is preparing food (in my kitchen (120 sq. ft.) at home I need all the space around me to cook, if the wife gets in the way which is her want to do, then I start to get a bit grumpy which (my bad) is my want to do).

The place you've described has the classic break room function of stack'em and pack'em.


----------



## fatboy

Right, that was my point. Why I feel 15 s.f. throughout works well.


----------



## globe trekker

I am in agreement with the 15 sq. ft. per person.  A Break Room is not ( typically ) specifically

designed for consumption of food / beverages, unless the plans clearly indicate this use.  The room

/ space could be used simply to chill out, ..review documents, ..watch tv ( if available ), etc.

Break Room - a space, room or area that is located away from the normal work areas.

.


----------



## gbhammer

globe trekker said:
			
		

> I am in agreement with the 15 sq. ft. per person.  A Break Room is not ( typically ) specificallydesigned for consumption of food / beverages, unless the plans clearly indicate this use.  The room
> 
> / space could be used simply to chill out, ..review documents, ..watch tv ( if available ), etc.
> 
> Break Room - a space, room or area that is located away from the normal work areas.
> 
> .


Your right the space can be used for anything. Next door in P&Z every Tuesday morning at 9am they use their break room as a conference room. The net sq. footage of their floor space is 126@15=8.4 occ load, in reality the space holds about 6 at the table and there is enough room for four or five more standing.


----------



## kilitact

The plans examiner needs to review the plans in order to determine the use of the space is correctly identified on the plans. The majority of the break rooms that I review are not much larger than 140 sq. ft. what I would identify as similar to most peoples home kitchen without the dining area. 15 sq. ft. per occupant is not used. On the occasional break room dining area combined than the use of 15 per is in accordance with the code.


----------



## RJJ

Boy we have answers all over the table!


----------



## Builder Bob

Chapter 10 is specific to use of the space..... Chapter 3 does  not have any bearing.... Even if it is an accessory tot he primary occupancy, the OL is still based on the use of the space.

One of the big issues that we have come across if the failure for ICC to recognize transitional Occupant Loads - i.e. church

Even if the same people are in Sunday School and then visit the santuary afterwards, the MOE has to be designed as if the entire buidling is in use at the same time.


----------



## gbhammer

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> Chapter 10 is specific to use of the space..... Chapter 3 does  not have any bearing.... Even if it is an accessory tot he primary occupancy, the OL is still based on the use of the space.One of the big issues that we have come across if the failure for ICC to recognize transitional Occupant Loads - i.e. church
> 
> Even if the same people are in Sunday School and then visit the santuary afterwards, the MOE has to be designed as if the entire buidling is in use at the same time.


The IPC is very clear about nonsimultaneous use. The building needs to be designed as though it were full, even if it is only full once in its life time. The IMC is the only place they have given a small degree of leniency by allowing the use of actual loads and that is mainly due to the extremely restrictive outside air requirements they had established. Every engineer worth his salt goes to ASHRAE 62 and knocks the OA requirements down by at least 40-60% on every assembly occupancy.


----------



## Examiner

There are churches that have both spaces occupied at the same time.  Church service going on the same time Sunday school is going on.  Larger Churches have this occurrence all the time on Sunday.  So yes you design the building and its occupant load as if all rooms and spaces are occupied at the same time.  Worse case scenario.


----------



## kilitact

RJJ said:
			
		

> Boy we have answers all over the table!


And getting even more, seems like a simple determination to make but then look at stairs to an attic.


----------



## gbhammer

kilitact said:
			
		

> And getting even more, seems like a simple determination to make but then look at stairs to an attic.


You just absolutely have to love this forum it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that a whole bunch of people are out there who like to over analysis things just like me.


----------



## JBI

Had to go to the attic stairs, didn't you kil???

Tables and chairs, 15 sf per person. Chairs only, 7. Standing space, 5. Actual number, just make sure they have enough egress.

In reality, less than 50 not posted and you can't stand there counting heads 24/7.


----------



## peach

In reality, it's the same people who work in the space that are using the "break room" - whatever they are doing there.  15sf/person works, but I've worked in places where the only time this space was used was when someone was warming up food to take it back to their desk (or the occassional school fundraiser signup sheet was in there).  I'm not sure you have to classify it/occupy it any differently than the rest of the building.


----------



## Builder Bob

kilitact said:
			
		

> And getting even more, seems like a simple determination to make but then look at stairs to an attic.


You would have to go there....Stairway to Heaven


----------



## peach

If the employees are in the "break room", they aren't anywhere else in the building; my biggest concern is if the room is big enough (particularly if there are tables and chairs), that you could have 50 people in there, that there are two exits from the room.


----------



## gbhammer

What about bring your kid to work day, or intern day, or ... they sell the office to company that has a lot of client meetings and they use the break room (since it’s the biggest room) some times for conference meetings?

Our job is only to look at how the space is labeled, and then determine worse case scenario "function" for that labeled space. *Again the code does not allow for nonsimultaneous use*. Once you have the design occupant load you provide the required egress from the space and you do a fixture count with the design count unless the actual occupant load is greater. The need to use worse case scenario counts becomes even more important if the sanitary system is on site. It is easy to blow out an on site system with one big occupant load day a year.


----------



## permitguy

Then I guess the whole world is a dance floor.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

gbhammer said:
			
		

> What about bring your kid to work day, or intern day, or ... they sell the office to company that has a lot of client meetings and they use the break room (since it’s the biggest room) some times for conference meetings?Our job is only to look at how the space is labeled, and then determine worse case scenario "function" for that labeled space. *Again the code does not allow for nonsimultaneous use*. Once you have the design occupant load you provide the required egress from the space and you do a fixture count with the design count unless the actual occupant load is greater. The need to use worse case scenario counts becomes even more important if the sanitary system is on site. It is easy to blow out an on site system with one big occupant load day a year.


What is your stance on 1004.1.1 for the areas without fixed seating exception allowing the actual number of occupants, although less than calculation, to be used in determining the design occupant load?


----------



## gbhammer

The exception that is now in the 2009 is a dangerous and slippery path to follow and our code official will only allow it in the extreme and only with a very rigorously documented ‘excuse’. Such as: The reason for a reduced occupant load must be given and the document then must be signed by the property owner, a board of directors (if such exist), in the case of a church the head/s of the order, in the case of a school the school board, and the insurance provider for the structure is also required to sign. Even if the property owner is willing to commit to the documentation our director is not likely to approve the request if she feels that the property is likely to change hands, and the new owners would not be obligated to in any way to use the space with a reduced occupant load.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The exception that is now in the 2009 is a dangerous and slippery path to follow and our code official will only allow it in the extreme and only with a very rigorously documented ‘excuse’.


  We have used this exception in cases where we have received sufficient documentation (i.e., research, letter of operations, letter of acknowledgement, request for alternative occupant design load, etc.)from an RDP and Owner/Tenant.  In these cases, the Certificate of Occupancy is specific to that tenant's use under the alternative loading, and a change of occupancy permit is required prior to another occupancy/tenant occupying the building.  I suppose as long as there is a capable system of tracking the occupancy and all parties know what they are doing, then the slope may not be quite so slippery...but I would still tread carefully.   

Doesn't the IPC also afford a similar exception for fixture distribution between the sexes?  That might be just as slippery of a slope as the IBC if not more.  I have seen this used on stadiums, as they want to decrease the number of fixtures for the female toilet rooms.  This option usually flies out of the window when I ask them if they plan on having concerts, and whether their statistical data still supports the dis-proportionality they proposed.


----------



## gbhammer

It is doubtful that this county will ever get a stadium, but that is a great argument to remember for dis-proportionality.


----------

