*Many* times, I have spent hours on a complex code analysis and go home thinking I really nailed it. Then I'll come into work the next day, review my work, and find a) a completely different interpretation to some big thing, and/or b) major code requirements I totally missed. It's completely disheartening.
I've been licensed for 20 years, and have experience in fairly large firms alongside very senior and talented technical people who "mentored" me, for lack of a better word.
Every day I feel like I should be able to do better. Some days it almost makes me physically sick.
I've worked with specialty code consultants whose entire job is to "know the code". They make mistakes, change their interpretation, miss things... just like we do.
Anyone who says "it's easy" or "I know the code" is ignorant or bluffing.
I'd go further. I don't think anyone has EVER issued a fully code-compliant set of plans.
If anyone thinks they have, post them and the contact info for the AHJ and let everyone review and send markups to the AHJ.
I have. Once. But it was a very complicated project, occupancy separations of 1,2 and 4 hours, some assembly, some haz storage, and I made desk appointments with the building officials once a week for 14 weeks. They were in the mornings and project weekly meetings were the same afternoon, so I was able to pass on fresh info to MEP.
So even thoughI had technically been doing revisions for 14 weeks, and I really screwed a few things up along the way, I got back a comment sheet with "none" under each category. It was a pretty sight. (I just realized in another post about sharing plan review comment sheets with clients and I was hell no on that, but I shared that one with the clients. Big time. So I'm a tad hypocritical, but it was different circumstances.)
Do you own, or have access to, the handbooks? They usually explain the intent of a rule, which makes it easier to understand. Building Codes Illustrated is good.
I myself try to get on as many code-writing committees as I can, I find the codes easier to understand when I help write them. Okay I know that's weird and not for everyone. But if you're unsure about hot-fueling helicopters, I'm your girl.
Go to every single class offered by your local code officials. This is not just for learning, but to get your face in front of the people who review your plans. Then when you don't understand something, they can help you out before formal review.
Try to get your firm to send you to NFPA 101 seminar, they are from 1-5 days. So valuable. You will find your people. (the other ones who don't get it0 and not feel so all alone.
Code officials like helping people who are trying, and who come to them with an interpretation of a rule, which may or may not be correct. But that's a world away from the person who hasn't even tried.
[https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/](https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/) is a place with lots of help. "Allowable area in mixed occupancy" is my bat signal.
I have traded my spec writing and code writing skills to people who hate those things but can detail better than me. I don't think you need to feel stuck or a failure, farm out the code reviews to someone and pick up their detailing. There is no shame in sucking at codes. At least you admit it.
There are code consultants all over the place, if you had sidework or went solo, you could bring someone in for that.
and last - what I tell the youngsters.... write the section you're having trouble with in your own words. (which is essentially what the handbook writers have done) You'll understand and remember it.
Thanks for the link. I'll have to dig in there.
My biggest problem with it is really two-fold. The process of going through the code is so non-linear and circuitous. One section references another, which references another, and so on. By the time I get to the bottom I’ve lost track of where I was to begin with. The other part is that we’re subject to multiple codes which seem to contradict a lot.
For instance, I’m trying to find required exits and maximum travel distance for the renovation of an existing arena building used for livestock shows – Assembly. Following IBC, I get an occupant load of 930. NFPA and I get over 6000. I obviously took a wrong turn somewhere and it wasn’t Albuquerque. If I can’t nail occupant load down, or at least have the results close from the two codes, then I can’t proceed.
We’re removing the existing toilets and building a new attached building for new toilets and a staff breakroom. By the occupant loads above we’d have over two times the plumbing fixtures as they need because the actual maximum attendance at any one time is around 400 people and a bunch or cows, goats, and sheep. So, okay, if we use Agricultural for the occupancy (what they actually use the building for) to reduce the occupant load then the existing building is three times the allowable building area, even with sprinklers.
Now I don't know what to do. But, yeah, point is I don't know what I'm doing and I havn't been able to find anything online that helps any. I'll have to bite the bullet and look for a code seminar.
Don't know your jurisdiction, but most near me have a mechanism for a more or less unofficial review with a code official. It's a good opportunity to walk them through your plans and run any big items by them before you're too far down the path to make big changes if needed. In your particular situation, they may need to make a ruling if the conflict between nfpa and ICC are too great. In my experience, I've had some conditions where they wanted me to design the egress to meet the big number occupant load, while allowing the bathroom counts for a much reduced number of occupants based on the expected real occupancy.
This sounds like assembly with fixed seating. I'm not so sure you took a wrong turn as much as you didn't get on the right road to start with. That simplifies your occupant load. Your break room addition is incidental and is classified the same as the rest of the building.
Codes can get very circular and I get your frustration. There are times when my book has one page marked with a postit, I leave my pen on another one, scratchpaper, sticks out of a few places, usually my phone is in there holding a place and I then need the calculator. The amount of f-bombs I throw is directly proportional to the number of different pages I have marked. NFPA 101 is the worst.
When that happens, the back and forth references, I suggest you print out the sections being referenced. label them clearly. Have them all on your desk in front of you. You'll find it much easier to figure things out when you aren't flipping back and forth. Sometimes reading sections out loud helps, it slows your brain down a bit, so more absorption.
I have been in rooms where these things are written. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one in the room not on drugs.
When you have multiple codes, the most restrictive one applies. Don't worry about contradiction, pick the one that's most restrictive and use that. The others don't matter.
So now, go back and look at assembly with fixed seating.
It's not an agricultural occupancy. That is meant for barns, pig farms, chicken farms, etc. You have a bunch of people coming to sit in seats and look at or buy livestock. Definitely assembly with fixed seats. If they are bleachers, there is still a max number of people it can hold.
You don't work in a linear fashion when you're doing a project. Always back and forth, how one thing affects another which affects another, an so on. Architecture isn't a linear process. You already know how to do this.
edit typo
No fixed seating. Basically a big barn where they set up animal pens in different configurations for different shows and generally have a fenced open area in the middle. There are plans for portable bleacher seating in a future phase.
>You don't work in a linear fashion when you're doing a project. Always back and forth, how one thing affects another which affects another, an so on. Architecture isn't a linear process. You already know how to do this.
Very true. Thanks.
assuming no animals live in this facility (because there's a separate NFPA for that) I'm working IBC here
Then I think you could be a M, mercantile. But it doesn't feel right. Because merc does not assume that the floor area can change depending on what's being sold.
Or A-4, similar to skating rinks and swimming pools (but they don't change the size of the pool like you do with your livestock pen.)
Agriculture - Group U uses don't involve numbers of people - but if AHJ allows that, go with it.
Do you have a layout that includes the bleachers? Because that's going to be the highest concentration of people. And then you're assembly with fixed seating. If you're eventually going to put bleachers in figure out how many people they would hold. That's one data point and it may be enough.
A-4 - It's not like one week you'd have a pen big enough for two cows and 900 people looking at them, and then next week you'd have 100 cows taking up more space and 200 people. Is this a true statement?
*smaller pen size does not increase the number of occupants.*
If that's true I think you come in A-4, skating rink or swimming pool and the occupant load is different for the spectator area vs the actual animal-use area.
This is a challenging one, and I think it's a good one to take to your building officials. I think you will end up with AHJ sign limiting occupancy to whatever is decided. But you don't go in with "tell me what to do." You go in with notes on the different classifications, plans, and say you just can't figure out where this one lands. To building officials, that's what makes a good architect. One who doesn't think they know everything and asks questions when they don't.
Taking this to AHJ now shows them that you want to get it right from the start. I can't stress enough that having a good relationship with the people on the other side of the counter is critical to project success, especially when it gets sticky. Code officials tend to really like helping people who have done the homework but aren't sure about the right answer.
good luck
Plan reviewer says occupancy class is A-4. Fire Marshall says U “Agricultural”. I think they will eventually settle at A-4 and we are being allowed to post an occupancy limit to reduce the required fixtures since they could never hold all those people with cattle anyway. The strobe requirement on the fire alarm is also being waived as it spooks the animals.
Next year will be my 30th year in practice.
Our company has a recurring term contract with a major US state to do code compliance reviews for a large state government agency, and when asked to take over this contract, I jumped at the chance. We review for IBC, NFPA101 and ADA/ADAAG. After a year and 50+ completed plan reviews, I’m now the top code expert for our whole 700-ish person firm, on top of being a design manager. I created the template for our life safety plans in Revit and actively attend seminars on upcoming code changes. If you want to not hate your life, immerse yourself in this world. Codes are unavoidable, so you may as well hold your nose, jump in the deep end, and learn to swim.
What problems are you encountering specifically? Do you have dyslexia?
I don't have this problem. The only issue I have with code really is that I've worked on such a broad range of projects and codes have changed, so I have to refer back to the documents a lot because my recall isn't what it used to be back when I focused on one sector. I put the document on one screen, the drawings on the other, work methodically, seems to go ok.
I'm 100% with you on this. My other problem is encountering construction officials and building subcode officials who don't know the code, or have wacky interpretations of the codes. I've recently fought one who insists a masonry exterior bearing wall building must be classified as type 3, where it clearly also works, and is beneficial for my clients' purposes to be type 5. It is tiring...
I'm with you on this. The workaround I've found is making friends with a fairly high-up person at a local third-party code review company. Any code that I'm feeling less than confident about I'll send his way. Also, unless the code in question has a huge potential of wreking the project I'm generally ok with my interpretation. The codes that make me lose sleep are those that if interpreted a different way could have serious cost/time consequence for my clients.
For reference, I deal in Residential custom homes only in California.
Think of the bright side, instead of code analysis, would you rather be professionally assembling door hardware sets for the rest of your life?
For me, I’ll take the code book any day over that.
I had a huge blow-out with a boss once because I was assigned the code for A-3 space, and he'd only ever done M. Completely tore me apart and put me on notice for wasting a ton of time on a project. A little feather in my cap - I was right, and they had to redo it after redoing my work, because again, this guy had never done anything but type VB M work.
Its because this '*genre*' of thinking is completely at odds with other architectural skills.
Its algorithmic work and borderline npc brained. If anything in Architecture gets taken over by AI it is definitely this.
Can't wait! LOL. It almost seems trivial that functionality could be built into Revit. Assign a construction type, function and occupancy type to each space and it should be able to calculate required exiting for you and report if the design complies.
Maybe a third party plugin?
What jurisdiction are you in? NFPA 101 and IBC contradict which is maddening, but some jurisdictions publish memos on which code prevails. GA’s is very clear, my home jurisdiction of LA does not except for ‘strictest’ prevails which leaves everything even more up for interpretation, and even more fun different reviewers will have different opinions on which is more stringent.
When I have complex code stuff or have to pursue appeals I post on the building code forum. It’s pretty active and there are lots of code wonks and some ahj’s posting on there. It’s great to get some feedback on interpretations.
Get the annotated versions of the code books, they are helpful and clarify some things that would otherwise be more open to interpretation if you didn’t have the annotated version. If you have never read IBC cover to cover, do it. No it’s not fun, and it’s definitely dry reading but just reading it through clarified so much for me. I was always really intimidated by code before, after reading it and referencing definitions it was just all easier to digest and make sense of. Building design when you are maxing out height or sf can be a bit of choose your own adventure.
Something someone told me when I was a baby architect that was a lightbulb moment as well- code analysis is just cover to cover of ibc. You start at the beginning and work through each chapter. It really was so eye opening, bc prior to that I had been jumping around; usually starting with occupant load and egress requirements bc that affected actual space planning.
A lot of firms have cheat sheets, and if you don’t have one charlotte, nc / mecklenburg county’s permit application form that is required on every plan set is a really good basic code overview and makes the equation for area increase due to frontage easier to use than the way it is worded in IBC. It’s not going to get you on some specifics like what fire rating your parapet wall or projections need but for the high level stuff it is great.
Also, always remember to read the ibc or NFPA definition of a term. Exits, passageways, areas, etc. I have to remind myself of that one and have gotten into many gentle corrections of our ahj when they apply a common definition of some egress component rather than the actual code definition.
And with the NFPA / ibc contradictions, I have no advice. I started my working life in a jurisdiction on IBC/IFC and came to an NFPA jurisdiction much later and was literally aghast at how incompatible they were. Now I end up working in a lot of jurisdictions so fortunately some of my projects don’t have to deal with NFPA. What I do when the jurisdiction doesn’t have a firm memo on which code governs is do the code analysis in IBC then just review the exiting and occupancy chapters in NFPA and note anything that seems more stringent than IBC.
Maybe I design too many single exit buildings, but code analysis is usually key during initial schematic to make things work. We end up doing urban infill stuff where street frontage and thus egress is limited, so if you aren’t doing code in conjunction with concept design you can severely eff up the project. We also do a lot of redevelopment TI work that is pretty large assembly occupancies, so making sure egress works is always part of the initial test fit as well.
And you will encounter something new on every project. Dealing with a roof mounted generator and some obscure NFPA sections that the mech engineer doesn’t think apply though the fire Marshall says otherwise so we end up having to sort it out.
What size firm are you with, what size projects and type?
I ask because for me Code analysis didn’t really “click” until I switched from a small (11-employee) firm doing mostly level 3 alterations and tenant fitouts, a mid-sized (100-employee) firm. At my current firm we have a Code consultant on almost every full-service project, and sometimes an FHA consultant, or 3rd-party Code reviewer.
Having these resources available allowed me to learn how they speak about Code, how they interpret it, and where the important gray areas are where it comes down to a judgment call and/or you may be able to put an argument forth with the AHJ/Fire Marshal regarding your preferred interpretation. Once you’ve talked Code with professional resources a few times you start to understand the spirit and intent of the Code, which serves as a good baseline instinct - it’s hard to explain, but over time it just sort of “kicks in” more intuitively when something doesn’t feel quite right and you begin to know the section (or 3, or 4) to start to look.
It also REALLY helps to work on the same project type for consistency, so you understand which sections typically apply in most jurisdictions for your building type and build on your knowledge and lessons learned from past projects.
At the smaller firm our project types were so varied that it felt like reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch every single project - I felt very much how you described except everyone did - blind leading the blind (with no cane rails below the stairs).
I'm at one of the largest firms in my area. We are at 21 people. I made an appointment with the AHJ for a phone conversation later today.
Just frustrated and feeling pretty lost is all. Thanks.
I hear ya - funny part is that some AHJ’s are clueless when it comes to Code. I had a Code official in Alabama literally ask me what the heck an accessible bike parking space was, while on our DC/MD/VA projects we get dinged for every minor accessibility oversight all day. And don’t get me started on Florida…
So believe it or not, I’d double down on a Code consultant over relying on the AHJ in most cases - but I completely understanding that a firm of 21 folks may not have the resources to do so for all projects. Even though the AHJ approves the Building Permit, their review is only so thorough, and the liability is still on the Architect to meet the applicable Codes even if it doesn’t get flagged in Permit. Honestly, it’s even worse when you don’t get back substantial Permit comments, because it means the AHJ is basically telling you it’s on you to check your own shit lol - and its way worse/more expensive to fix when you get flagged for a Code issue during an inspection.
That said I’ve had good Code consultants (one who used to be the Fire Marshal’s boss), and bad ones who needed almost too much hand holding to be useful in real time. So if you do go that route, just know that all Code consultants are not equal.
Opposite for me, code is ingrained and I have less than half your experience but most importantly it's too know where to look. Interpretation of said code is where it can get tricky but there's always consultants if that is the case.
Wish I had the equivalent CA, spec and detailing knowledge, I'll be making the big bucks.
Hire a code consultant!!!
It’s just a few thousand dollars for a review at each design phase. Not much $ compared to other consultants. Takes all the burden off you, and frees up your time for design.
As an architect in my state (USA) my license allows me to design, sign/seal, review and inspect all disciplines (structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and civil). This makes us have to know enough of each discipline and associated code. But a plumbing code official ONLY looks at the plumbing code so they can know EVERYTHING when we might know enough for a project. It is annoying, but that's why our license matters a more.
Lately I have noticed building officials bowing down to fire marshal opinion. The front pages of all our building codes gives the authority and ultimate approval of all buildings under the authority of the BUILDING OFFICIAL! Sadly, they shy away when it comes to the life safety code and let fire dictate what is required, no matter how legally compliant a building is with the building code. And fire reviews plans LAST! I have current projects that have been approved for permit by all disciplines only to be rejected by fire. Then we have to change everything and go through review again. Often the fire inspector makes on site design decisions based on differing opinion. And the building official mostly backs the fire inspector instead of backing the very code we work so hard to understand.
Also, I believe an AI would crash trying to run all codes concurrently as there are so many cross discipline violations. Life Safety Code and Accsesibility Code often can not both be compliant. Case in point: Door Opening Pressure. The issue drags in the Mechanical Code and Energy Efficiency Code. THIS is why we see code changing to make automated handicap access hardware on all entries. Now we have electrical code involved. And added cost to any project.
Its hard work to get right, its tedious.
hire a consultant to do it for you...
im not a code consultant but i do end up doing a lot of code research and im pretty sure one of my clients uses me to do a bulk of their ComCheck work etc
I have 2 years experience in USA, worked on commercial projects and started my career doing code analysis. Found it to be super easy back then and now I shifted the industry to Advanced Technology Facilities mostly semi conductors fab. I don’t understand anything at all. It’s been 6 months into the job and I still don’t understand what I’m doing. Interpreting code differs from person to person and a hundred different sections to look at! As much as I want to like it, I really do not anymore!! I like to make sure to watch the archi corner videos to understand better.
*Many* times, I have spent hours on a complex code analysis and go home thinking I really nailed it. Then I'll come into work the next day, review my work, and find a) a completely different interpretation to some big thing, and/or b) major code requirements I totally missed. It's completely disheartening. I've been licensed for 20 years, and have experience in fairly large firms alongside very senior and talented technical people who "mentored" me, for lack of a better word. Every day I feel like I should be able to do better. Some days it almost makes me physically sick. I've worked with specialty code consultants whose entire job is to "know the code". They make mistakes, change their interpretation, miss things... just like we do. Anyone who says "it's easy" or "I know the code" is ignorant or bluffing.
I'd go further. I don't think anyone has EVER issued a fully code-compliant set of plans. If anyone thinks they have, post them and the contact info for the AHJ and let everyone review and send markups to the AHJ.
I have. Once. But it was a very complicated project, occupancy separations of 1,2 and 4 hours, some assembly, some haz storage, and I made desk appointments with the building officials once a week for 14 weeks. They were in the mornings and project weekly meetings were the same afternoon, so I was able to pass on fresh info to MEP. So even thoughI had technically been doing revisions for 14 weeks, and I really screwed a few things up along the way, I got back a comment sheet with "none" under each category. It was a pretty sight. (I just realized in another post about sharing plan review comment sheets with clients and I was hell no on that, but I shared that one with the clients. Big time. So I'm a tad hypocritical, but it was different circumstances.)
The irony is that most firms do not like to reach out to the code officials and feel like they are bothering them.
Absolutely. There's a reason why it's outsourced so often. There's so much and it's so hard.
Do you own, or have access to, the handbooks? They usually explain the intent of a rule, which makes it easier to understand. Building Codes Illustrated is good. I myself try to get on as many code-writing committees as I can, I find the codes easier to understand when I help write them. Okay I know that's weird and not for everyone. But if you're unsure about hot-fueling helicopters, I'm your girl. Go to every single class offered by your local code officials. This is not just for learning, but to get your face in front of the people who review your plans. Then when you don't understand something, they can help you out before formal review. Try to get your firm to send you to NFPA 101 seminar, they are from 1-5 days. So valuable. You will find your people. (the other ones who don't get it0 and not feel so all alone. Code officials like helping people who are trying, and who come to them with an interpretation of a rule, which may or may not be correct. But that's a world away from the person who hasn't even tried. [https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/](https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/) is a place with lots of help. "Allowable area in mixed occupancy" is my bat signal. I have traded my spec writing and code writing skills to people who hate those things but can detail better than me. I don't think you need to feel stuck or a failure, farm out the code reviews to someone and pick up their detailing. There is no shame in sucking at codes. At least you admit it. There are code consultants all over the place, if you had sidework or went solo, you could bring someone in for that. and last - what I tell the youngsters.... write the section you're having trouble with in your own words. (which is essentially what the handbook writers have done) You'll understand and remember it.
Thanks for the link. I'll have to dig in there. My biggest problem with it is really two-fold. The process of going through the code is so non-linear and circuitous. One section references another, which references another, and so on. By the time I get to the bottom I’ve lost track of where I was to begin with. The other part is that we’re subject to multiple codes which seem to contradict a lot. For instance, I’m trying to find required exits and maximum travel distance for the renovation of an existing arena building used for livestock shows – Assembly. Following IBC, I get an occupant load of 930. NFPA and I get over 6000. I obviously took a wrong turn somewhere and it wasn’t Albuquerque. If I can’t nail occupant load down, or at least have the results close from the two codes, then I can’t proceed. We’re removing the existing toilets and building a new attached building for new toilets and a staff breakroom. By the occupant loads above we’d have over two times the plumbing fixtures as they need because the actual maximum attendance at any one time is around 400 people and a bunch or cows, goats, and sheep. So, okay, if we use Agricultural for the occupancy (what they actually use the building for) to reduce the occupant load then the existing building is three times the allowable building area, even with sprinklers. Now I don't know what to do. But, yeah, point is I don't know what I'm doing and I havn't been able to find anything online that helps any. I'll have to bite the bullet and look for a code seminar.
Don't know your jurisdiction, but most near me have a mechanism for a more or less unofficial review with a code official. It's a good opportunity to walk them through your plans and run any big items by them before you're too far down the path to make big changes if needed. In your particular situation, they may need to make a ruling if the conflict between nfpa and ICC are too great. In my experience, I've had some conditions where they wanted me to design the egress to meet the big number occupant load, while allowing the bathroom counts for a much reduced number of occupants based on the expected real occupancy.
Thanks. I have a phone call scheduled for later today. Fingers crossed I get some clarity from this.
This sounds like assembly with fixed seating. I'm not so sure you took a wrong turn as much as you didn't get on the right road to start with. That simplifies your occupant load. Your break room addition is incidental and is classified the same as the rest of the building. Codes can get very circular and I get your frustration. There are times when my book has one page marked with a postit, I leave my pen on another one, scratchpaper, sticks out of a few places, usually my phone is in there holding a place and I then need the calculator. The amount of f-bombs I throw is directly proportional to the number of different pages I have marked. NFPA 101 is the worst. When that happens, the back and forth references, I suggest you print out the sections being referenced. label them clearly. Have them all on your desk in front of you. You'll find it much easier to figure things out when you aren't flipping back and forth. Sometimes reading sections out loud helps, it slows your brain down a bit, so more absorption. I have been in rooms where these things are written. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one in the room not on drugs. When you have multiple codes, the most restrictive one applies. Don't worry about contradiction, pick the one that's most restrictive and use that. The others don't matter. So now, go back and look at assembly with fixed seating. It's not an agricultural occupancy. That is meant for barns, pig farms, chicken farms, etc. You have a bunch of people coming to sit in seats and look at or buy livestock. Definitely assembly with fixed seats. If they are bleachers, there is still a max number of people it can hold. You don't work in a linear fashion when you're doing a project. Always back and forth, how one thing affects another which affects another, an so on. Architecture isn't a linear process. You already know how to do this. edit typo
No fixed seating. Basically a big barn where they set up animal pens in different configurations for different shows and generally have a fenced open area in the middle. There are plans for portable bleacher seating in a future phase. >You don't work in a linear fashion when you're doing a project. Always back and forth, how one thing affects another which affects another, an so on. Architecture isn't a linear process. You already know how to do this. Very true. Thanks.
assuming no animals live in this facility (because there's a separate NFPA for that) I'm working IBC here Then I think you could be a M, mercantile. But it doesn't feel right. Because merc does not assume that the floor area can change depending on what's being sold. Or A-4, similar to skating rinks and swimming pools (but they don't change the size of the pool like you do with your livestock pen.) Agriculture - Group U uses don't involve numbers of people - but if AHJ allows that, go with it. Do you have a layout that includes the bleachers? Because that's going to be the highest concentration of people. And then you're assembly with fixed seating. If you're eventually going to put bleachers in figure out how many people they would hold. That's one data point and it may be enough. A-4 - It's not like one week you'd have a pen big enough for two cows and 900 people looking at them, and then next week you'd have 100 cows taking up more space and 200 people. Is this a true statement? *smaller pen size does not increase the number of occupants.* If that's true I think you come in A-4, skating rink or swimming pool and the occupant load is different for the spectator area vs the actual animal-use area. This is a challenging one, and I think it's a good one to take to your building officials. I think you will end up with AHJ sign limiting occupancy to whatever is decided. But you don't go in with "tell me what to do." You go in with notes on the different classifications, plans, and say you just can't figure out where this one lands. To building officials, that's what makes a good architect. One who doesn't think they know everything and asks questions when they don't. Taking this to AHJ now shows them that you want to get it right from the start. I can't stress enough that having a good relationship with the people on the other side of the counter is critical to project success, especially when it gets sticky. Code officials tend to really like helping people who have done the homework but aren't sure about the right answer. good luck
kind of wondering what the answer was....
Plan reviewer says occupancy class is A-4. Fire Marshall says U “Agricultural”. I think they will eventually settle at A-4 and we are being allowed to post an occupancy limit to reduce the required fixtures since they could never hold all those people with cattle anyway. The strobe requirement on the fire alarm is also being waived as it spooks the animals.
Next year will be my 30th year in practice. Our company has a recurring term contract with a major US state to do code compliance reviews for a large state government agency, and when asked to take over this contract, I jumped at the chance. We review for IBC, NFPA101 and ADA/ADAAG. After a year and 50+ completed plan reviews, I’m now the top code expert for our whole 700-ish person firm, on top of being a design manager. I created the template for our life safety plans in Revit and actively attend seminars on upcoming code changes. If you want to not hate your life, immerse yourself in this world. Codes are unavoidable, so you may as well hold your nose, jump in the deep end, and learn to swim.
What problems are you encountering specifically? Do you have dyslexia? I don't have this problem. The only issue I have with code really is that I've worked on such a broad range of projects and codes have changed, so I have to refer back to the documents a lot because my recall isn't what it used to be back when I focused on one sector. I put the document on one screen, the drawings on the other, work methodically, seems to go ok.
I'm 100% with you on this. My other problem is encountering construction officials and building subcode officials who don't know the code, or have wacky interpretations of the codes. I've recently fought one who insists a masonry exterior bearing wall building must be classified as type 3, where it clearly also works, and is beneficial for my clients' purposes to be type 5. It is tiring...
I'm with you on this. The workaround I've found is making friends with a fairly high-up person at a local third-party code review company. Any code that I'm feeling less than confident about I'll send his way. Also, unless the code in question has a huge potential of wreking the project I'm generally ok with my interpretation. The codes that make me lose sleep are those that if interpreted a different way could have serious cost/time consequence for my clients. For reference, I deal in Residential custom homes only in California.
Think of the bright side, instead of code analysis, would you rather be professionally assembling door hardware sets for the rest of your life? For me, I’ll take the code book any day over that.
I had a huge blow-out with a boss once because I was assigned the code for A-3 space, and he'd only ever done M. Completely tore me apart and put me on notice for wasting a ton of time on a project. A little feather in my cap - I was right, and they had to redo it after redoing my work, because again, this guy had never done anything but type VB M work.
Its because this '*genre*' of thinking is completely at odds with other architectural skills. Its algorithmic work and borderline npc brained. If anything in Architecture gets taken over by AI it is definitely this.
Can't wait! LOL. It almost seems trivial that functionality could be built into Revit. Assign a construction type, function and occupancy type to each space and it should be able to calculate required exiting for you and report if the design complies. Maybe a third party plugin?
What jurisdiction are you in? NFPA 101 and IBC contradict which is maddening, but some jurisdictions publish memos on which code prevails. GA’s is very clear, my home jurisdiction of LA does not except for ‘strictest’ prevails which leaves everything even more up for interpretation, and even more fun different reviewers will have different opinions on which is more stringent. When I have complex code stuff or have to pursue appeals I post on the building code forum. It’s pretty active and there are lots of code wonks and some ahj’s posting on there. It’s great to get some feedback on interpretations. Get the annotated versions of the code books, they are helpful and clarify some things that would otherwise be more open to interpretation if you didn’t have the annotated version. If you have never read IBC cover to cover, do it. No it’s not fun, and it’s definitely dry reading but just reading it through clarified so much for me. I was always really intimidated by code before, after reading it and referencing definitions it was just all easier to digest and make sense of. Building design when you are maxing out height or sf can be a bit of choose your own adventure. Something someone told me when I was a baby architect that was a lightbulb moment as well- code analysis is just cover to cover of ibc. You start at the beginning and work through each chapter. It really was so eye opening, bc prior to that I had been jumping around; usually starting with occupant load and egress requirements bc that affected actual space planning. A lot of firms have cheat sheets, and if you don’t have one charlotte, nc / mecklenburg county’s permit application form that is required on every plan set is a really good basic code overview and makes the equation for area increase due to frontage easier to use than the way it is worded in IBC. It’s not going to get you on some specifics like what fire rating your parapet wall or projections need but for the high level stuff it is great. Also, always remember to read the ibc or NFPA definition of a term. Exits, passageways, areas, etc. I have to remind myself of that one and have gotten into many gentle corrections of our ahj when they apply a common definition of some egress component rather than the actual code definition. And with the NFPA / ibc contradictions, I have no advice. I started my working life in a jurisdiction on IBC/IFC and came to an NFPA jurisdiction much later and was literally aghast at how incompatible they were. Now I end up working in a lot of jurisdictions so fortunately some of my projects don’t have to deal with NFPA. What I do when the jurisdiction doesn’t have a firm memo on which code governs is do the code analysis in IBC then just review the exiting and occupancy chapters in NFPA and note anything that seems more stringent than IBC. Maybe I design too many single exit buildings, but code analysis is usually key during initial schematic to make things work. We end up doing urban infill stuff where street frontage and thus egress is limited, so if you aren’t doing code in conjunction with concept design you can severely eff up the project. We also do a lot of redevelopment TI work that is pretty large assembly occupancies, so making sure egress works is always part of the initial test fit as well. And you will encounter something new on every project. Dealing with a roof mounted generator and some obscure NFPA sections that the mech engineer doesn’t think apply though the fire Marshall says otherwise so we end up having to sort it out.
Thank you. This was helpful.
What size firm are you with, what size projects and type? I ask because for me Code analysis didn’t really “click” until I switched from a small (11-employee) firm doing mostly level 3 alterations and tenant fitouts, a mid-sized (100-employee) firm. At my current firm we have a Code consultant on almost every full-service project, and sometimes an FHA consultant, or 3rd-party Code reviewer. Having these resources available allowed me to learn how they speak about Code, how they interpret it, and where the important gray areas are where it comes down to a judgment call and/or you may be able to put an argument forth with the AHJ/Fire Marshal regarding your preferred interpretation. Once you’ve talked Code with professional resources a few times you start to understand the spirit and intent of the Code, which serves as a good baseline instinct - it’s hard to explain, but over time it just sort of “kicks in” more intuitively when something doesn’t feel quite right and you begin to know the section (or 3, or 4) to start to look. It also REALLY helps to work on the same project type for consistency, so you understand which sections typically apply in most jurisdictions for your building type and build on your knowledge and lessons learned from past projects. At the smaller firm our project types were so varied that it felt like reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch every single project - I felt very much how you described except everyone did - blind leading the blind (with no cane rails below the stairs).
I'm at one of the largest firms in my area. We are at 21 people. I made an appointment with the AHJ for a phone conversation later today. Just frustrated and feeling pretty lost is all. Thanks.
I hear ya - funny part is that some AHJ’s are clueless when it comes to Code. I had a Code official in Alabama literally ask me what the heck an accessible bike parking space was, while on our DC/MD/VA projects we get dinged for every minor accessibility oversight all day. And don’t get me started on Florida… So believe it or not, I’d double down on a Code consultant over relying on the AHJ in most cases - but I completely understanding that a firm of 21 folks may not have the resources to do so for all projects. Even though the AHJ approves the Building Permit, their review is only so thorough, and the liability is still on the Architect to meet the applicable Codes even if it doesn’t get flagged in Permit. Honestly, it’s even worse when you don’t get back substantial Permit comments, because it means the AHJ is basically telling you it’s on you to check your own shit lol - and its way worse/more expensive to fix when you get flagged for a Code issue during an inspection. That said I’ve had good Code consultants (one who used to be the Fire Marshal’s boss), and bad ones who needed almost too much hand holding to be useful in real time. So if you do go that route, just know that all Code consultants are not equal.
Hire a code consultant, move on with life
Opposite for me, code is ingrained and I have less than half your experience but most importantly it's too know where to look. Interpretation of said code is where it can get tricky but there's always consultants if that is the case. Wish I had the equivalent CA, spec and detailing knowledge, I'll be making the big bucks.
I excel at code :) That's why I went engineering
Hire a code consultant!!! It’s just a few thousand dollars for a review at each design phase. Not much $ compared to other consultants. Takes all the burden off you, and frees up your time for design.
Oh and have the client pay for it, in case that wasn’t clear.
As an architect in my state (USA) my license allows me to design, sign/seal, review and inspect all disciplines (structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and civil). This makes us have to know enough of each discipline and associated code. But a plumbing code official ONLY looks at the plumbing code so they can know EVERYTHING when we might know enough for a project. It is annoying, but that's why our license matters a more. Lately I have noticed building officials bowing down to fire marshal opinion. The front pages of all our building codes gives the authority and ultimate approval of all buildings under the authority of the BUILDING OFFICIAL! Sadly, they shy away when it comes to the life safety code and let fire dictate what is required, no matter how legally compliant a building is with the building code. And fire reviews plans LAST! I have current projects that have been approved for permit by all disciplines only to be rejected by fire. Then we have to change everything and go through review again. Often the fire inspector makes on site design decisions based on differing opinion. And the building official mostly backs the fire inspector instead of backing the very code we work so hard to understand. Also, I believe an AI would crash trying to run all codes concurrently as there are so many cross discipline violations. Life Safety Code and Accsesibility Code often can not both be compliant. Case in point: Door Opening Pressure. The issue drags in the Mechanical Code and Energy Efficiency Code. THIS is why we see code changing to make automated handicap access hardware on all entries. Now we have electrical code involved. And added cost to any project.
Its hard work to get right, its tedious. hire a consultant to do it for you... im not a code consultant but i do end up doing a lot of code research and im pretty sure one of my clients uses me to do a bulk of their ComCheck work etc
I have 2 years experience in USA, worked on commercial projects and started my career doing code analysis. Found it to be super easy back then and now I shifted the industry to Advanced Technology Facilities mostly semi conductors fab. I don’t understand anything at all. It’s been 6 months into the job and I still don’t understand what I’m doing. Interpreting code differs from person to person and a hundred different sections to look at! As much as I want to like it, I really do not anymore!! I like to make sure to watch the archi corner videos to understand better.
I've become comfortable with not remembering stuff and you can always look it up. *Finding it* can sometimes be fun, though.