RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List
MORE MO!!! We were the wind! I had Ryan drive about 7 hours, now he wants to know when he'll inherit! Proposals will be for 2014 cycle for 13. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:26 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List I didn't propose it during last cycle on 22 since I considered it a 13 thing. However, you've spurred me- I'll send a proposal in to the 13 TC tonight. PWYP Glc Ps- and the ride home was awesome? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List See George all you had to do was ask, and in less than 12 hours this forum has removed one of your 6 bucket list items. Now if those pesky 22 committee members would just get the tank gradient fixed! Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:42 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List Now that we've got the IRC having SFD #13D in it, there's a couple wish list items I'd also like to see before my time in this business is up: 1. Mandate tank gradient correction for water supplies 2. Stop putting sprinklers out on decks for the IBC sprinkler whizzes 3. Stop the Heat/Vent issue in sprinklered buildings so we don't have to go thru the charade of filing a variance for egress distance 250' by using smoke vents, then taking them back out because its ESFR. Plus the number of places with ESFR in non-storage occupancies where they don't belong simply because they enable omission of vents. (4. What do we do with Big Ass Fans?) DONE!!! (At least for ESFR's) 5. Competence increase throughout the industry's facets- PE/EOR, BCO/FCO, Contractor alike. 6. A Coordination process that works and is enforced. I'm sure there's a lot more, and others may want to run with this thread. It'll give us some ideas for topics other than PE bashing, B A Fans, etc. glc ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
OK I'll play the other side. Any evidence that these otherwise should have been 13 buildings have had any losses greater than what would have happened in a 13? This 13R where 13 is called for has been going on for at least 20 years. We should have data by now. And FF's are to a large extent responsible for their own safety. Their actions largely define their risk not the building. And a majority of FF deaths occur in non-fire attack mode. 20% die engaged in a fire fight. As a retired fire service member I am gravely concerned for the safety of firefighters too but I certainly don't link 13 vs 13R to this conversation. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question This is almost getting scary Huggins and Layton on the same page as an AHJ ! Yikes Seriously I'm afraid that we have under protected buildings lurking, worse some of them may have been built with construction type and separation allowances under the assumption that compliant sprinkler systems were being provided. As a fire service member I am gravely concerned for the safety of firefighters. Sincerely John Drucker Active Firefighter Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Mixed-Use Code Question those have been lenient AHJ/BCO's. Other than the previously discussed EXCEPTION (parking floor to other occupancies), the only way a single structure can be two or more buildings is separation by fire WALLS. Walls in a horizontally orientation is called a collapsed building. AS for dancing in the separated occupancy area, some will attempt to say that 508.3.3.1 allows each to be designed with total disregard for the other occupancy. What it actual says is simply that each portion will be separately identified by its own occupancy. IN order to apply a combination of 13 and 13R, you have to ignore that 903.3.1.2 that allows the use of 13R states Where allowed in BUILDINGS of Group R... shall be provided throughout. IT doesn't say portions of buildings Now back in the confused past, I think 2003 but maybe older, the IBC did say portions of buildings within this section. Because the older IBC was confusing, the 13R TC addressed this issue in the scope (and annex). So in order to embrace the Separated approach, one also has to ignore the Scope of 13R. Bottom line, without a local amendment allowing mixing systems, it is not allowed. The ENTIRE building must satisfy the allowance to use 13R. To put it another way, 20 yrs from now when I'm retired and looking for something to occupy my feeble mind, the first court questions for those that have embraced mixing of systems will be something like: Now aren't portions of buildings protected per NFPA 13 expected to provide property protection which encompasses continuity of business. So you agree I see. Now doesn't a 13R system primarily focus on life safety with a much lower level of property protection whereas if you burn the roof off but the people get out, it's a success (thus allowing the attic to be unprotected). So you agree again. Now Mr Consultant (because this IS an engineering decision) how is it that just because the second floor was residential, you didn't protect the attic and you put poor old commercial guy on the first floor out of business. Doesn't that conflict with the scope of 13? So you agree it does (well actually I'm sure the defendant would swallow their tongue before acknowledging that). In looking at the big picture, it's an easy evaluation. Focus just on one code section though, and ambiguity rears its ugly head. Roland On Mar 13, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Ron Greenman wrote: Although I disagree with interpretation for horizontal fire barriers that Jamie refers to that has been typical in many jurisdictions out on the best coast. As others have mentioned typically the entire lower floor is commercial with 13/horizontal fire barrier/13R above. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word
Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
To repeat that famous quote: Stupid IS as stupid DOES. Roland On Mar 14, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Tom Duross wrote: They think that once the other 7 units and common basement (OH2 per spec, ok by me) are completed, the changes will only apply within the four walls of the unit. I sent him a good luck email an hour ago, I think I'm done even though I really need the work. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Funny... I just heard second hand a competitor (who many fondly refer to as Gump) got it and is running with the (deceit) ball. 55K job for 38K. He also has fashioned a nicet stamp that looks just like a PE stamp, say's registered sprinkler contractor around the edge with his nicet number in the center, dumb idiot (some locals might know who I mean). I saw it on a set of plans of his once. Tom To repeat that famous quote: Stupid IS as stupid DOES. Roland On Mar 14, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Tom Duross wrote: They think that once the other 7 units and common basement (OH2 per spec, ok by me) are completed, the changes will only apply within the four walls of the unit. I sent him a good luck email an hour ago, I think I'm done even though I really need the work. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
Tom, Turn him in to NICET, they're awfully cranky about people doing that sort of thing, going so far as to pull certifications from individuals. Registered Sprinkler Contractor, that's a new one on me. I bet he thinks it's pretty clever too. -- PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net Tom Duross wrote: Funny... I just heard second hand a competitor (who many fondly refer to as Gump) got it and is running with the (deceit) ball. 55K job for 38K. He also has fashioned a nicet stamp that looks just like a PE stamp, say's registered sprinkler contractor around the edge with his nicet number in the center, dumb idiot (some locals might know who I mean). I saw it on a set of plans of his once. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
I'll echo that completely - Mike will follow up on it. Doubt you'd even have to have a copy of it, Tommy, I think if you just emailed Mike Clark at Nicet, he'd just need the name of the guy and he'll track them down. I've attached Mike's email address up at the top of this email, along with yours, to pave the way for dialogue. Understand NICET is some version of the National Society of PEs, shares space in the Washington Engineering Headquarters in Alexandria, so the Board of Directors is likely chockfull of PEs who aren't going to tolerate someone making a Jr PE seal out of a NICET registration. George Church Rowe Sprinkler -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of ParsleyConsulting Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:41 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Mixed-Use Code Question Tom, Turn him in to NICET, they're awfully cranky about people doing that sort of thing, going so far as to pull certifications from individuals. Registered Sprinkler Contractor, that's a new one on me. I bet he thinks it's pretty clever too. -- PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net Tom Duross wrote: Funny... I just heard second hand a competitor (who many fondly refer to as Gump) got it and is running with the (deceit) ball. 55K job for 38K. He also has fashioned a nicet stamp that looks just like a PE stamp, say's registered sprinkler contractor around the edge with his nicet number in the center, dumb idiot (some locals might know who I mean). I saw it on a set of plans of his once. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
If I can help ferret out a copy of this guy's stamp, let me know. It still doesn't beat the contractor (same state) who was using the dead PE's stamp, but it is close. At 02:34 PM 3/16/2009, you wrote: Funny... I just heard second hand a competitor (who many fondly refer to as Gump) got it and is running with the (deceit) ball. 55K job for 38K. He also has fashioned a nicet stamp that looks just like a PE stamp, say's registered sprinkler contractor around the edge with his nicet number in the center, dumb idiot (some locals might know who I mean). I saw it on a set of plans of his once. Tom To repeat that famous quote: Stupid IS as stupid DOES. Roland On Mar 14, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Tom Duross wrote: They think that once the other 7 units and common basement (OH2 per spec, ok by me) are completed, the changes will only apply within the four walls of the unit. I sent him a good luck email an hour ago, I think I'm done even though I really need the work. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
I think there are a couple of members who know who he is. Thanks, I knew a contractor 20 years ago who had folders of sticky backs he had copied of various PE's signed stamps off of plans. Some people... If I can help ferret out a copy of this guy's stamp, let me know. It still doesn't beat the contractor (same state) who was using the dead PE's stamp, but it is close. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List
See George all you had to do was ask, and in less than 12 hours this forum has removed one of your 6 bucket list items. Now if those pesky 22 committee members would just get the tank gradient fixed! Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:42 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List Now that we've got the IRC having SFD #13D in it, there's a couple wish list items I'd also like to see before my time in this business is up: 1. Mandate tank gradient correction for water supplies 2. Stop putting sprinklers out on decks for the IBC sprinkler whizzes 3. Stop the Heat/Vent issue in sprinklered buildings so we don't have to go thru the charade of filing a variance for egress distance 250' by using smoke vents, then taking them back out because its ESFR. Plus the number of places with ESFR in non-storage occupancies where they don't belong simply because they enable omission of vents. (4. What do we do with Big Ass Fans?) DONE!!! (At least for ESFR's) 5. Competence increase throughout the industry's facets- PE/EOR, BCO/FCO, Contractor alike. 6. A Coordination process that works and is enforced. I'm sure there's a lot more, and others may want to run with this thread. It'll give us some ideas for topics other than PE bashing, B A Fans, etc. glc ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List
I didn't propose it during last cycle on 22 since I considered it a 13 thing. However, you've spurred me- I'll send a proposal in to the 13 TC tonight. PWYP Glc Ps- and the ride home was awesome? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List See George all you had to do was ask, and in less than 12 hours this forum has removed one of your 6 bucket list items. Now if those pesky 22 committee members would just get the tank gradient fixed! Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:42 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List Now that we've got the IRC having SFD #13D in it, there's a couple wish list items I'd also like to see before my time in this business is up: 1. Mandate tank gradient correction for water supplies 2. Stop putting sprinklers out on decks for the IBC sprinkler whizzes 3. Stop the Heat/Vent issue in sprinklered buildings so we don't have to go thru the charade of filing a variance for egress distance 250' by using smoke vents, then taking them back out because its ESFR. Plus the number of places with ESFR in non-storage occupancies where they don't belong simply because they enable omission of vents. (4. What do we do with Big Ass Fans?) DONE!!! (At least for ESFR's) 5. Competence increase throughout the industry's facets- PE/EOR, BCO/FCO, Contractor alike. 6. A Coordination process that works and is enforced. I'm sure there's a lot more, and others may want to run with this thread. It'll give us some ideas for topics other than PE bashing, B A Fans, etc. glc ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
Steve stated it great. The committee did a good job of clearing any misuse. I agree with John that we have buildings out there that are built to the wrong standard. 30 minutes and life safety goals in buildings that should of have a full system. John Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with Nextel Direct Connect -Original Message- From: Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:11:52 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question I agree with you, and the TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems has adopted language for Chapter 1 of 13R that is intended to finally clarify the appropriate application of the standard. If ratified at the code hearing, the standard will be applicable buildings of residential occupancy and their accessory non-residential uses only; the only way that a single structure would have sprinkler systems designed to different standards is if it is fire-separated to the extent that the areas are considered separate buildings in accordance with the building code for that construction type. These separations may be horizontal and/or vertical. I've tried to transcribe Log #21, proposal 13R-2 below: Revise the scope of NFPA 13R to read: 1.1* Scope. This standard shall cover the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems for protection against fire hazards in residential buildings up to and including four stories in height. Revise A.1.1 as amended by Proposal 13R-58, Proposal 13R-57, Proposal 13R-56, to read as follows: A.1.1 NFPA 13R is appropriate for use only in buildings that are entirely residential occupancies up to and including four stories in height. Residential occupancies are defined in this standard. The height of the building is as defined in the applicable building code. It is the intent of this standard that if NFPA 13R is appropriate for use, that it be used throughout the entire building. It is recognized that incidental and accessory areas, as defined by the applicable building code, might exist within that residential occupancy. Such incidental and accessory areas would typically be considered by the applicable building code to be part of the residential occupancy and subject to the requirements for the residential occupancy by. Where buildings are greater than four stories in height, or where buildings are of mixed use, such buildings should be protected throughout with NFPA 13. Where structures of mixed use can be totally separated so that a residential occupancy is considered a separate building under the applicable building code, NFPA 13R can be used in the building of entirely residential occupancy while NFPA 13 is used in the other building(s). (Examples of incidental and accessory occupancies found in residential occupancies can include: management offices, private parking garages/areas within a dwelling unit, community laundry rooms, clubhouses, exercise facilities, tenant storage within a dwelling unit, etc.). Note, a separated mixed use structure (separated by fire-resistance rated assemblies) is not the same as a structure with separate buildings (separated by fire walls). However, there may be applicable building code provisions that permit upper and lower portions of a structure, separated by a three hour fire rated horizontal assembly, to be considered as separate buildings for certain purposes (See 2006 NFPA 5000, Section 7.4.3.6.5 and 2006 IBC Section 509.2). Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Mixed-Use Code Question Although I disagree with interpretation for horizontal fire barriers that Jamie refers to that has been typical in many jurisdictions out on the best coast. As others have mentioned typically the entire lower floor is commercial with 13/horizontal fire barrier/13R above. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jamie Seidl jse...@affordablefire.com wrote: In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
The 13R origins and development statement says it all. The standard was clearly promulgated to facilitate sprinklers in low rise, 4 story or less, residential facilities. Nowhere is the term mixed use or mixed occupancy referenced. I believe there's a misconception of what constitutes a residential or a mixed use. A residential building with a private parking garage serving the residents and incidental use spaces such as mail rooms, lobbies, exercise rooms, trash and utility rooms, manager's office is considered a single R Use pursuant to the IBC/IFC. This is not a mixed use. 13R is the appropriate standard for this building. The entire system is classified 13R not a 13/13R hybrid something that simply doesn't exist. Yes you need selected sections of 13 to sprinkler outside the dwelling units nonetheless its 13R that gets you there, parts of 13 in effect are a reference, in the end the system is 13R. (PS, 13R committee, take what you need out of 13 put it in 13R and be done with it) A residential building with a public garage, restaurants, offices, retail is a mixed use building pursuant to the IBC/IFC. This is not a single R Use. 13 is the appropriate standard for this building. The entire system is 13. Unlike 13R, 13 does not reference 13R. Origin and Development of NFPA 13R (Extracted From 2007 NFPA-13R, EMPHASIS added) The first edition of NFPA 13R, which was published in 1989, represented a milestone in the development of sprinkler installation design standards. The first edition resulted in a standard for the protection of low-rise, RESIDENTIAL facilities. This standard is intended to provide a higher degree of life safety and property protection to the INHABITENTS of low-rise, multifamily DWELLINGS. Promulgated as a document that provides for increased levels of protection to BUILDING OCCUPANTS, the document also considers the economic aspects of a sprinklered facility as compared to an unsprinklered facility. As the number of states and cities that implement sprinkler ordinances continues to grow, and as the threshold levels for sprinkler requirements in RESIDENTIAL occupancies in the building codes extend to certain low-rise structures, it is believed that systems for certain RESIDENTIAL occupancies can be efficiently and effectively installed in accordance with this standard. The 1994 edition provided expanded information on nonmetallic pipe materials, minor changes to clarify the established design criteria, and a new recommendation on underground pipe materials. The 1996 edition included several changes that paralleled amendments in the 1996 edition of NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Other changes included a number of clarifications concerning the selection of sprinklers as well as the proper use of sprinklers. The 1999 edition clarified criteria for nonmetallic pipe and fittings and established a minimum operating pressure for sprinklers. Guidance on providing freeze protection using insulation in attics and antifreeze systems was provided, as was information on the application of solvent cement for nonmetallic piping. Exceptions for omitting sprinkler coverage in closets on balconies and underneath garage doors were added. The 2002 edition incorporated revisions to update the standard to comply with the 2000 edition of the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents. These revisions included editorially rewording any exceptions as requirements. The 2002 edition also included changes that further clarified the scope of the standard, established a minimum design discharge density, and added protection requirements specifically for garages. The section addressing spaces where sprinklers are permitted to be omitted was changed so that the area of full-height tub/shower enclosures would be included in the area determination for bathrooms, sprinklers would be provided in concealed spaces with fuel-fired equipment, and the omission of sprinklers in elevator machine rooms would not be dependent on the room's location. This 2007 edition now includes spacing and obstruction rules addressing sloped ceilings, ceiling pockets, ceiling fans, and kitchen cabinets. For this edition, the requirements for utilizing quick-response sprinklers within NFPA 13R regulations were clarified, and new requirements addressing architectural features within dwelling units were added. Additionally, the requirements covering closets, including obstructions within closets and protection of mechanical closets, were clarified. Finally, new requirements were added that are applicable from NFPA 13 to NFPA 13R, to ensure proper administration of those requirements where relevant. Hope that helps. Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance,
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
I'm going to lose this job for one reason only but I'm doing right by the code, my liability and my conscience (if that matters). It's staying as a residential building for the long form application. At some point, they plan to apply for another permit for changing one unit from residential to commercial use (they told me short form, but I think the chart says the indexes require a long, not certain) but this will be done after all the rough inspections have been received and they begin finish. I told them the use of pvc and certain types of residential wiring cannot be used within the unit if it becomes commercial and all the ramifications of the sprinkler work, but I prefaced it as I thought so not to appear as some kind of expert more so they wouldn't keep asking me free questions for free info (don't you HATE that?). They think that once the other 7 units and common basement (OH2 per spec, ok by me) are completed, the changes will only apply within the four walls of the unit. I sent him a good luck email an hour ago, I think I'm done even though I really need the work. I am though, gonna be a sneaky pr*ck and copy the AHJ who's a friend.. ;) I have to say I don't mean to seem like the guy who gets all these type of jobs, what with the knucklehead who reviewed my plans last month but I think they might seek me out and find me sometimes. Maybe my sprinkler karma is low or something. Also not to digress but another I lost last summer that got around the code I drove bye the other day, empty and all for sale and I smiled. This guy (owner/builder/bank/self-titled expert) built a eight-unit four-building attached four story condo with four one-and-two-family residential permits, each building was two units, one over the other with fire walls continuous from foundation to roof with air space ( he said he was an expert holding his USG book) with the sole purpose of getting out of standpipes and using 13D. Separate 1 1/2 services into each 2 family building. It got built, it's done, 4 story stairs front and back, but at least he's having trouble selling them ($599K each). Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
Tom, Let your conscious be your guide. I once told a contractor I was working for I wouldn't design a building that was aboveground public parking (1 level) with a horizontal fire wall (type I), then four stories of type V apartments, all designed to 13R even though the architect said it was OK because the parking was just for tenants and there was a separation between the I and the V and there were only four stories of apartments. I told the contractor he'd need to find another designer and why I wouldn't do it. Props to him for also refusing to do it even though approved by the architect and the AHJ. And by the way that same contractor recently had another thread on this forum because that same AHJ (jurisdiction-not individual although that may also be the case) is refusing to allow for limited combustibility in an unoccupied attic space because IBC doesn't directly address limited combustibility in section X (I forget and don't want to look it up) nor recognize that limited combustibility in 13 is just as much a part of IBC as any other part. So there you go--V over I is OK, five stories of 13R is OK if you separate every four with a horizontal fire wall (13R high rise condos anyone?), but there is no such thing allowed as limited combustibility. Go figure. On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Tom Duross tduro...@comcast.net wrote: I'm going to lose this job for one reason only but I'm doing right by the code, my liability and my conscience (if that matters). It's staying as a residential building for the long form application. At some point, they plan to apply for another permit for changing one unit from residential to commercial use (they told me short form, but I think the chart says the indexes require a long, not certain) but this will be done after all the rough inspections have been received and they begin finish. I told them the use of pvc and certain types of residential wiring cannot be used within the unit if it becomes commercial and all the ramifications of the sprinkler work, but I prefaced it as I thought so not to appear as some kind of expert more so they wouldn't keep asking me free questions for free info (don't you HATE that?). They think that once the other 7 units and common basement (OH2 per spec, ok by me) are completed, the changes will only apply within the four walls of the unit. I sent him a good luck email an hour ago, I think I'm done even though I really need the work. I am though, gonna be a sneaky pr*ck and copy the AHJ who's a friend.. ;) I have to say I don't mean to seem like the guy who gets all these type of jobs, what with the knucklehead who reviewed my plans last month but I think they might seek me out and find me sometimes. Maybe my sprinkler karma is low or something. Also not to digress but another I lost last summer that got around the code I drove bye the other day, empty and all for sale and I smiled. This guy (owner/builder/bank/self-titled expert) built a eight-unit four-building attached four story condo with four one-and-two-family residential permits, each building was two units, one over the other with fire walls continuous from foundation to roof with air space ( he said he was an expert holding his USG book) with the sole purpose of getting out of standpipes and using 13D. Separate 1 1/2 services into each 2 family building. It got built, it's done, 4 story stairs front and back, but at least he's having trouble selling them ($599K each). Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Ron Greenman at home ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
What we've done in the past is provide OH-2 at the lower (commercial) level to allow for retail and then residential above. But the entire design has been per 13, albeit with the residential provisions of the standard. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary with regards to design (13 vs. 13R) but I just thought I'd ask the masses with a little time on their hands how this would resolve under their current codes. Often we have similar provisions and interpretations and I don't have the workbook, tabs or supplement yet for ours. We're new to this edition. I'm able to refer to 13 for design in areas like Basements but still base the remainder of the system under 13R requirements and our old code gave little guidance as to percentages with regards to areas outside of the use group. I'm wondering if, disregarding permit application for now, the addition of one of the 8 units from residential use to commercial use (will be a store) will effect the design. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3935 (20090313) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3935 (20090313) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Tom, IBC Section 508. Incidental uses are those provided for in Table 508.2 pursuant to 508.2.1. and include private parking garages (406.2), otherwise it's a mixed (occupancy) use and not a residential (occupancy) use. 13R Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height , is not the appropriate standard for mixed use occupancies. Keep in mind that the residential provisions of 13 can be applied in the dwelling units. Hope that helps John Drucker -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary with regards to design (13 vs. 13R) but I just thought I'd ask the masses with a little time on their hands how this would resolve under their current codes. Often we have similar provisions and interpretations and I don't have the workbook, tabs or supplement yet for ours. We're new to this edition. I'm able to refer to 13 for design in areas like Basements but still base the remainder of the system under 13R requirements and our old code gave little guidance as to percentages with regards to areas outside of the use group. I'm wondering if, disregarding permit application for now, the addition of one of the 8 units from residential use to commercial use (will be a store) will effect the design. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
There are a few design directions the project may go. One option is to identify it as a separated mixed-use building, which requires fire-rated separations between occupancy types and incidental use areas. A second option is non-separated mixed use where the architect / engineer need to verify the type of construction and building height and areas are compliant. If utilizing non-separated mixed use, the incidental use table does not apply. Also, the inclusion of the retail / commercial use will require NFPA 13. To go a little further, whether using separated mixed-use of non-separated mixed-use, separate systems are not required per building code, but may be advisable to keep the commercial and residential areas separate. Carl Chappell -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:02 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question What we've done in the past is provide OH-2 at the lower (commercial) level to allow for retail and then residential above. But the entire design has been per 13, albeit with the residential provisions of the standard. Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:23 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary with regards to design (13 vs. 13R) but I just thought I'd ask the masses with a little time on their hands how this would resolve under their current codes. Often we have similar provisions and interpretations and I don't have the workbook, tabs or supplement yet for ours. We're new to this edition. I'm able to refer to 13 for design in areas like Basements but still base the remainder of the system under 13R requirements and our old code gave little guidance as to percentages with regards to areas outside of the use group. I'm wondering if, disregarding permit application for now, the addition of one of the 8 units from residential use to commercial use (will be a store) will effect the design. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3935 (20090313) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3935 (20090313) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary with regards to design (13 vs. 13R) but I just thought I'd ask the masses with a little time on their hands how this would resolve under their current codes. Often we have similar provisions and interpretations and I don't have the workbook, tabs or supplement yet for ours. We're new to this edition. I'm able to refer to 13 for design in areas like Basements but still base the remainder of the system under 13R requirements and our old code gave little guidance as to percentages with regards to areas outside of the use group. I'm wondering if, disregarding permit application for now, the addition of one of the 8 units from residential use to commercial use (will be a store) will effect the design. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Thanks. My take is the owner got the chance for an early sale as a commercial condo and wants to take it. I wrote the gc that I thought the implications to spkr. and fa design might effect the rest of the building and they might want to reconsider the quick sale and factor in the details. I just wrote them back and referred to John's (and others) clarifications (thanks again) and put together a fast budget of density, concealed space, and pipe size changes (type v construction btw) and also a heads up for the plumber and electrician's changes. Looks like a go even with the additional costs associated. Tom For you seasoned users of this code, new to us 3/1/09, where did you get your tabs and supplements? I'm still at the highlighter and dog-ear stage and trying to bone-up quick. In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Eh, you don't need the tabs they're over rated... and they fall off... I think mine are still in the bottom of a box some where... a 6 pack get's em! Jamie -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:50 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question Thanks. My take is the owner got the chance for an early sale as a commercial condo and wants to take it. I wrote the gc that I thought the implications to spkr. and fa design might effect the rest of the building and they might want to reconsider the quick sale and factor in the details. I just wrote them back and referred to John's (and others) clarifications (thanks again) and put together a fast budget of density, concealed space, and pipe size changes (type v construction btw) and also a heads up for the plumber and electrician's changes. Looks like a go even with the additional costs associated. Tom For you seasoned users of this code, new to us 3/1/09, where did you get your tabs and supplements? I'm still at the highlighter and dog-ear stage and trying to bone-up quick. In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Careful on the IBC 509 provisions, i.e. so called horizontal firewalls. First and foremost anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. Second firewalls must meet the criteria of being able to collapse on either side, but not both, without effecting the opposite side. As Scotty once said Captain I cant defy the laws of physics ! When the lower floor goes, well I guess you know what happens next. So much for horizontal firewalls and separate buildings created by them. Lets take a closer look at 509, 509.2 to be exact. Heres what it says; A basement and/or the first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered as a separate and distinct building for the purpose of determining area limitations, continuity of fire walls, limitation of number of stories and type of construction. The commentary hits the nail on the head; The subsections of Section 509 are EXCEPTIONS to the general HEIGHT AND AREA limitations of Chapter 5. Nothing in there about exceptions for Chapter 9, Mixed Uses and Sprinklers. In the end its still a mixed use building where an allowance for height, area and construction type has been made for a 3 Hr horizontal assembly. Back in the day we called this taxpayer buildings making good use of available land, parking below, commercial/mercantile at grade and residential above the first floor. The IBC merely accomodates this with regards to building construction. So in the end if its mixed its 13. Hope that helps John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary with regards to design (13 vs. 13R) but I just thought I'd ask the masses with a little time on their hands how this would resolve under their current codes. Often we have similar provisions and interpretations and I don't have the workbook, tabs or supplement yet for ours. We're new to this edition. I'm able to refer to 13 for design in areas like Basements but still base the remainder of the system under 13R requirements and our old code gave little guidance as to percentages with regards to areas outside of the use group. I'm wondering if, disregarding permit application for now, the addition of one of the 8 units from residential use to commercial use (will be a store) will effect the design. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, nor is it, unless specifically stated, intended to be relied upon by any person or persons other than the individual or entity named above and no warranties or representations are made or intended to persons or entities not named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination
Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
Although I disagree with interpretation for horizontal fire barriers that Jamie refers to that has been typical in many jurisdictions out on the best coast. As others have mentioned typically the entire lower floor is commercial with 13/horizontal fire barrier/13R above. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jamie Seidl jse...@affordablefire.com wrote: In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary with regards to design (13 vs. 13R) but I just thought I'd ask the masses with a little time on their hands how this would resolve under their current codes. Often we have similar provisions and interpretations and I don't have the workbook, tabs or supplement yet for ours. We're new to this edition. I'm able to refer to 13 for design in areas like Basements but still base the remainder of the system under 13R requirements and our old code gave little guidance as to percentages with regards to areas outside of the use group. I'm wondering if, disregarding permit application for now, the addition of one of the 8 units from residential use to commercial use (will be a store) will effect the design. Tom ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Ron Greenman at home ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
As always, I should have clarified... I was looking at the North Carolina IBC. Table 302.3.2 in the NCIBC (table 508.3.3 in the 2006 IBC) omitted the (S) and (NS) designations for the required separation of occupancies. Which basically means you don't necessarily have to stick to 903.3.1.1 for sprinkler system type. Thus in North Carolina, you can have a separated mixed use building, I.E. group R above an S, B, M, ect... where the sprinkler system only needs to meet the requirements for the occupancy as long as you comply with the separation requirements. So in NC, non separated mixed use... full 13. Separated mixed use, system per occupancy classification as long as you haven't exceeded height, area, open area, fire lane ect. limitations and the AHJ is ok with it. When did Dixie become so progressive? John, I would agree whole heartedly that anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. It's a fire barrier. I've gotten called out on the carpet for that verbiage before :) Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question Careful on the IBC 509 provisions, i.e. so called horizontal firewalls. First and foremost anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. Second firewalls must meet the criteria of being able to collapse on either side, but not both, without effecting the opposite side. As Scotty once said Captain I cant defy the laws of physics ! When the lower floor goes, well I guess you know what happens next. So much for horizontal firewalls and separate buildings created by them. Lets take a closer look at 509, 509.2 to be exact. Heres what it says; A basement and/or the first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered as a separate and distinct building for the purpose of determining area limitations, continuity of fire walls, limitation of number of stories and type of construction. The commentary hits the nail on the head; The subsections of Section 509 are EXCEPTIONS to the general HEIGHT AND AREA limitations of Chapter 5. Nothing in there about exceptions for Chapter 9, Mixed Uses and Sprinklers. In the end its still a mixed use building where an allowance for height, area and construction type has been made for a 3 Hr horizontal assembly. Back in the day we called this taxpayer buildings making good use of available land, parking below, commercial/mercantile at grade and residential above the first floor. The IBC merely accomodates this with regards to building construction. So in the end if its mixed its 13. Hope that helps John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary with regards to design (13 vs. 13R) but I just thought I'd ask the masses with a little time on their hands how this would resolve under their current codes. Often we have similar provisions and interpretations and I don't have the workbook, tabs or supplement yet for ours. We're new to this edition. I'm able to refer to 13 for design in areas like Basements but still base the remainder of the system under 13R requirements and our old code gave little guidance as to percentages with regards to areas outside of the use group. I'm wondering if, disregarding permit application for now, the addition of one of the 8 units from residential use
Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
those have been lenient AHJ/BCO's. Other than the previously discussed EXCEPTION (parking floor to other occupancies), the only way a single structure can be two or more buildings is separation by fire WALLS. Walls in a horizontally orientation is called a collapsed building. AS for dancing in the separated occupancy area, some will attempt to say that 508.3.3.1 allows each to be designed with total disregard for the other occupancy. What it actual says is simply that each portion will be separately identified by its own occupancy. IN order to apply a combination of 13 and 13R, you have to ignore that 903.3.1.2 that allows the use of 13R states Where allowed in BUILDINGS of Group R... shall be provided throughout. IT doesn't say portions of buildings Now back in the confused past, I think 2003 but maybe older, the IBC did say portions of buildings within this section. Because the older IBC was confusing, the 13R TC addressed this issue in the scope (and annex). So in order to embrace the Separated approach, one also has to ignore the Scope of 13R. Bottom line, without a local amendment allowing mixing systems, it is not allowed. The ENTIRE building must satisfy the allowance to use 13R. To put it another way, 20 yrs from now when I'm retired and looking for something to occupy my feeble mind, the first court questions for those that have embraced mixing of systems will be something like: Now aren't portions of buildings protected per NFPA 13 expected to provide property protection which encompasses continuity of business. So you agree I see. Now doesn't a 13R system primarily focus on life safety with a much lower level of property protection whereas if you burn the roof off but the people get out, it's a success (thus allowing the attic to be unprotected). So you agree again. Now Mr Consultant (because this IS an engineering decision) how is it that just because the second floor was residential, you didn't protect the attic and you put poor old commercial guy on the first floor out of business. Doesn't that conflict with the scope of 13? So you agree it does (well actually I'm sure the defendant would swallow their tongue before acknowledging that). In looking at the big picture, it's an easy evaluation. Focus just on one code section though, and ambiguity rears its ugly head. Roland On Mar 13, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Ron Greenman wrote: Although I disagree with interpretation for horizontal fire barriers that Jamie refers to that has been typical in many jurisdictions out on the best coast. As others have mentioned typically the entire lower floor is commercial with 13/horizontal fire barrier/13R above. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Jamie, However 2006 IBC 2006 IFC provides; [F] 903.2.7 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be PROVIDED THROUGHOUT all buildings with a Group R fire area. Emphasis on throughout all buildings. Let's take a look at 2006 IBC 508, particularly Table 508.3.3 REQUIRED SEPARATION OF OCCUPANCIES (HOURS) and the footnotes. Footnote S=Buildings EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. [F] 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. Where the provisions of this code require that a building or portion thereof be EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1.1. And just for extra measure; F] 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where ALLOWED in buildings of GROUP R, up to and including four stories in height, automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R. In summary mixed use buildings, even separated mixed use buildings require NFPA-13 complaint systems throughout. Hope that helps Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question As always, I should have clarified... I was looking at the North Carolina IBC. Table 302.3.2 in the NCIBC (table 508.3.3 in the 2006 IBC) omitted the (S) and (NS) designations for the required separation of occupancies. Which basically means you don't necessarily have to stick to 903.3.1.1 for sprinkler system type. Thus in North Carolina, you can have a separated mixed use building, I.E. group R above an S, B, M, ect... where the sprinkler system only needs to meet the requirements for the occupancy as long as you comply with the separation requirements. So in NC, non separated mixed use... full 13. Separated mixed use, system per occupancy classification as long as you haven't exceeded height, area, open area, fire lane ect. limitations and the AHJ is ok with it. When did Dixie become so progressive? John, I would agree whole heartedly that anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. It's a fire barrier. I've gotten called out on the carpet for that verbiage before :) Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question Careful on the IBC 509 provisions, i.e. so called horizontal firewalls. First and foremost anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. Second firewalls must meet the criteria of being able to collapse on either side, but not both, without effecting the opposite side. As Scotty once said Captain I cant defy the laws of physics ! When the lower floor goes, well I guess you know what happens next. So much for horizontal firewalls and separate buildings created by them. Lets take a closer look at 509, 509.2 to be exact. Heres what it says; A basement and/or the first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered as a separate and distinct building for the purpose of determining area limitations, continuity of fire walls, limitation of number of stories and type of construction. The commentary hits the nail on the head; The subsections of Section 509 are EXCEPTIONS to the general HEIGHT AND AREA limitations of Chapter 5. Nothing in there about exceptions for Chapter 9, Mixed Uses and Sprinklers. In the end its still a mixed use building where an allowance for height, area and construction type has been made for a 3 Hr horizontal assembly. Back in the day we called this taxpayer buildings making good use of available land, parking below, commercial/mercantile at grade and residential above the first floor. The IBC merely accomodates this with regards to building construction. So in the end if its mixed its 13. Hope that helps John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
This is almost getting scary Huggins and Layton on the same page as an AHJ ! Yikes Seriously I'm afraid that we have under protected buildings lurking, worse some of them may have been built with construction type and separation allowances under the assumption that compliant sprinkler systems were being provided. As a fire service member I am gravely concerned for the safety of firefighters. Sincerely John Drucker Active Firefighter Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Mixed-Use Code Question those have been lenient AHJ/BCO's. Other than the previously discussed EXCEPTION (parking floor to other occupancies), the only way a single structure can be two or more buildings is separation by fire WALLS. Walls in a horizontally orientation is called a collapsed building. AS for dancing in the separated occupancy area, some will attempt to say that 508.3.3.1 allows each to be designed with total disregard for the other occupancy. What it actual says is simply that each portion will be separately identified by its own occupancy. IN order to apply a combination of 13 and 13R, you have to ignore that 903.3.1.2 that allows the use of 13R states Where allowed in BUILDINGS of Group R... shall be provided throughout. IT doesn't say portions of buildings Now back in the confused past, I think 2003 but maybe older, the IBC did say portions of buildings within this section. Because the older IBC was confusing, the 13R TC addressed this issue in the scope (and annex). So in order to embrace the Separated approach, one also has to ignore the Scope of 13R. Bottom line, without a local amendment allowing mixing systems, it is not allowed. The ENTIRE building must satisfy the allowance to use 13R. To put it another way, 20 yrs from now when I'm retired and looking for something to occupy my feeble mind, the first court questions for those that have embraced mixing of systems will be something like: Now aren't portions of buildings protected per NFPA 13 expected to provide property protection which encompasses continuity of business. So you agree I see. Now doesn't a 13R system primarily focus on life safety with a much lower level of property protection whereas if you burn the roof off but the people get out, it's a success (thus allowing the attic to be unprotected). So you agree again. Now Mr Consultant (because this IS an engineering decision) how is it that just because the second floor was residential, you didn't protect the attic and you put poor old commercial guy on the first floor out of business. Doesn't that conflict with the scope of 13? So you agree it does (well actually I'm sure the defendant would swallow their tongue before acknowledging that). In looking at the big picture, it's an easy evaluation. Focus just on one code section though, and ambiguity rears its ugly head. Roland On Mar 13, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Ron Greenman wrote: Although I disagree with interpretation for horizontal fire barriers that Jamie refers to that has been typical in many jurisdictions out on the best coast. As others have mentioned typically the entire lower floor is commercial with 13/horizontal fire barrier/13R above. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
John, that was my point. North Carolina has eliminated the S NS designations in that chart. Thus placing the sprinkler protection requirements back to the occupancy classifications. So if the required separation is in place you can reduce the sprinkler protection back to the minimum required for the occupancy, once again as long as you haven't hit another trigger in the code for full 13. I'm trying to remember where I've read it, but if it's sprinklered per NFPA 13R and the code allows NFPA 13R then it shall be considered to be sprinklered throughout. throughout doesn't necessarily mean everywhere, just where the standard requires it. -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:53 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question Jamie, However 2006 IBC 2006 IFC provides; [F] 903.2.7 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be PROVIDED THROUGHOUT all buildings with a Group R fire area. Emphasis on throughout all buildings. Let's take a look at 2006 IBC 508, particularly Table 508.3.3 REQUIRED SEPARATION OF OCCUPANCIES (HOURS) and the footnotes. Footnote S=Buildings EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. [F] 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. Where the provisions of this code require that a building or portion thereof be EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1.1. And just for extra measure; F] 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where ALLOWED in buildings of GROUP R, up to and including four stories in height, automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R. In summary mixed use buildings, even separated mixed use buildings require NFPA-13 complaint systems throughout. Hope that helps Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Seidl Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:57 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question As always, I should have clarified... I was looking at the North Carolina IBC. Table 302.3.2 in the NCIBC (table 508.3.3 in the 2006 IBC) omitted the (S) and (NS) designations for the required separation of occupancies. Which basically means you don't necessarily have to stick to 903.3.1.1 for sprinkler system type. Thus in North Carolina, you can have a separated mixed use building, I.E. group R above an S, B, M, ect... where the sprinkler system only needs to meet the requirements for the occupancy as long as you comply with the separation requirements. So in NC, non separated mixed use... full 13. Separated mixed use, system per occupancy classification as long as you haven't exceeded height, area, open area, fire lane ect. limitations and the AHJ is ok with it. When did Dixie become so progressive? John, I would agree whole heartedly that anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. It's a fire barrier. I've gotten called out on the carpet for that verbiage before :) Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question Careful on the IBC 509 provisions, i.e. so called horizontal firewalls. First and foremost anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. Second firewalls must meet the criteria of being able to collapse on either side, but not both, without effecting the opposite side. As Scotty once said Captain I cant defy the laws of physics ! When the lower floor goes, well I guess you know what happens next. So much for horizontal firewalls and separate buildings created by them. Lets take a closer look at 509, 509.2 to be exact. Heres what it says; A basement and/or the first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered as a separate and distinct building for the purpose of determining area limitations, continuity of fire walls, limitation of number of stories and type of construction. The commentary hits the nail on the head; The subsections of Section 509 are EXCEPTIONS to the general HEIGHT AND AREA limitations of Chapter 5. Nothing in there about exceptions for Chapter 9, Mixed Uses and Sprinklers. In the end its still a mixed use building where an allowance for height, area and construction type has been made for a 3 Hr horizontal assembly. Back in the day we called this taxpayer buildings making good use
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
I agree with you, and the TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems has adopted language for Chapter 1 of 13R that is intended to finally clarify the appropriate application of the standard. If ratified at the code hearing, the standard will be applicable buildings of residential occupancy and their accessory non-residential uses only; the only way that a single structure would have sprinkler systems designed to different standards is if it is fire-separated to the extent that the areas are considered separate buildings in accordance with the building code for that construction type. These separations may be horizontal and/or vertical. I've tried to transcribe Log #21, proposal 13R-2 below: Revise the scope of NFPA 13R to read: 1.1* Scope. This standard shall cover the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems for protection against fire hazards in residential buildings up to and including four stories in height. Revise A.1.1 as amended by Proposal 13R-58, Proposal 13R-57, Proposal 13R-56, to read as follows: A.1.1 NFPA 13R is appropriate for use only in buildings that are entirely residential occupancies up to and including four stories in height. Residential occupancies are defined in this standard. The height of the building is as defined in the applicable building code. It is the intent of this standard that if NFPA 13R is appropriate for use, that it be used throughout the entire building. It is recognized that incidental and accessory areas, as defined by the applicable building code, might exist within that residential occupancy. Such incidental and accessory areas would typically be considered by the applicable building code to be part of the residential occupancy and subject to the requirements for the residential occupancy by. Where buildings are greater than four stories in height, or where buildings are of mixed use, such buildings should be protected throughout with NFPA 13. Where structures of mixed use can be totally separated so that a residential occupancy is considered a separate building under the applicable building code, NFPA 13R can be used in the building of entirely residential occupancy while NFPA 13 is used in the other building(s). (Examples of incidental and accessory occupancies found in residential occupancies can include: management offices, private parking garages/areas within a dwelling unit, community laundry rooms, clubhouses, exercise facilities, tenant storage within a dwelling unit, etc.). Note, a separated mixed use structure (separated by fire-resistance rated assemblies) is not the same as a structure with separate buildings (separated by fire walls). However, there may be applicable building code provisions that permit upper and lower portions of a structure, separated by a three hour fire rated horizontal assembly, to be considered as separate buildings for certain purposes (See 2006 NFPA 5000, Section 7.4.3.6.5 and 2006 IBC Section 509.2). Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Mixed-Use Code Question Although I disagree with interpretation for horizontal fire barriers that Jamie refers to that has been typical in many jurisdictions out on the best coast. As others have mentioned typically the entire lower floor is commercial with 13/horizontal fire barrier/13R above. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jamie Seidl jse...@affordablefire.com wrote: In IBC land, there is Separated and Non-separated mixed use. Non separated, your entire building would be full 13. In separated mixed use, as long as the ratings meet the required separations or separate buildings of the code, (including horizontal) you can use 13 for the lower area and 13R for the upper. There has been some contention on the designation of a separate building and a horizontal fire barrier, but this configuration has met the intent of the code in the jurisdictions I've dealt with. Jamie Seidl -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to other's building codes. Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use. I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-use or not. I've asked the gc if he's still applying as an R2 and he's not sure, architect in on vacation (go figure). I'm leafing through our building code (ICC-03) right now to see if this qualifies as ancillary
RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Steve, As you pointed out, for certain purposes. 509.2 stipulates the purposes; 509.2 Group S-2 enclosed or open parking garage with Group A, B, M, R or S above. A basement and/or the first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BUIDLING FOR THE PURPOSE OF determining AREA LIMITATIONS, CONTINUITY OF FIRE WALLS, LIMITATION OF NUMBER OF STORIES and TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION when all of the following conditions are met; IBC 509.2 does not state for the purpose of occupancy classification, thus it is still a mixed use building. Only two things separate structures into wholly separate buildings 1) Fire Walls, 2) Distance. With that said 903.3.1.2 is clear; [F] 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. WHERE ALLOWED in BUILDINGS of GROUP R, up to and including four stories in height, automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R. What we are speaking of is Buildings of Group R and something else other than an incidental use. The proposed scope of 13R makes it clear that 13R is not for mixed use buildings; 1.1* Scope. This standard shall cover the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems for protection against fire hazards in residential buildings up to and including four stories in height. If the intent is to allow 13R systems in the residential portions of a mixed use building, whether a 508 or 509, then the IBC needs to be amended accordingly. Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question I agree with you, and the TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems has adopted language for Chapter 1 of 13R that is intended to finally clarify the appropriate application of the standard. If ratified at the code hearing, the standard will be applicable buildings of residential occupancy and their accessory non-residential uses only; the only way that a single structure would have sprinkler systems designed to different standards is if it is fire-separated to the extent that the areas are considered separate buildings in accordance with the building code for that construction type. These separations may be horizontal and/or vertical. I've tried to transcribe Log #21, proposal 13R-2 below: Revise the scope of NFPA 13R to read: 1.1* Scope. This standard shall cover the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems for protection against fire hazards in residential buildings up to and including four stories in height. Revise A.1.1 as amended by Proposal 13R-58, Proposal 13R-57, Proposal 13R-56, to read as follows: A.1.1 NFPA 13R is appropriate for use only in buildings that are entirely residential occupancies up to and including four stories in height. Residential occupancies are defined in this standard. The height of the building is as defined in the applicable building code. It is the intent of this standard that if NFPA 13R is appropriate for use, that it be used throughout the entire building. It is recognized that incidental and accessory areas, as defined by the applicable building code, might exist within that residential occupancy. Such incidental and accessory areas would typically be considered by the applicable building code to be part of the residential occupancy and subject to the requirements for the residential occupancy by. Where buildings are greater than four stories in height, or where buildings are of mixed use, such buildings should be protected throughout with NFPA 13. Where structures of mixed use can be totally separated so that a residential occupancy is considered a separate building under the applicable building code, NFPA 13R can be used in the building of entirely residential occupancy while NFPA 13 is used in the other building(s). (Examples of incidental and accessory occupancies found in residential occupancies can include: management offices, private parking garages/areas within a dwelling unit, community laundry rooms, clubhouses, exercise facilities, tenant storage within a dwelling unit, etc.). Note, a separated mixed use structure (separated by fire-resistance rated assemblies) is not the same as a structure with separate buildings (separated by fire walls). However, there may be applicable building code provisions that permit upper and lower portions of a structure, separated by a three hour fire rated horizontal assembly, to be considered as separate buildings for certain purposes (See 2006 NFPA 5000, Section 7.4.3.6.5 and 2006 IBC Section 509.2). Steve Leyton Protection Design Consulting San Diego, CA -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
Cut to the chase. 13R exists solely to get sprinklers into buildings of residential construction where the hazard is not too great (four stories and less) at a cost that made it attractive to do, a compromise if you will, back in the days when sprinklers were only in commercial buildings and sprinklering cracker-box apartments, migrant labor dormitories and cheap hotels was,to coin an NAHB phrase, too expensive. Well, it's done its job and it's high time we just bid it a fond farewell and sprinkler all Rs (except SFDs of course because they're mostly protected by fire alarms anyways) to 13. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM, John Drucker john.druc...@verizon.net wrote: Steve, As you pointed out, for certain purposes. 509.2 stipulates the purposes; 509.2 Group S-2 enclosed or open parking garage with Group A, B, M, R or S above. A basement and/or the first story above grade plane of a building shall be considered AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BUIDLING FOR THE PURPOSE OF determining AREA LIMITATIONS, CONTINUITY OF FIRE WALLS, LIMITATION OF NUMBER OF STORIES and TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION when all of the following conditions are met; IBC 509.2 does not state for the purpose of occupancy classification, thus it is still a mixed use building. Only two things separate structures into wholly separate buildings 1) Fire Walls, 2) Distance. With that said 903.3.1.2 is clear; [F] 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. WHERE ALLOWED in BUILDINGS of GROUP R, up to and including four stories in height, automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R. What we are speaking of is Buildings of Group R and something else other than an incidental use. The proposed scope of 13R makes it clear that 13R is not for mixed use buildings; 1.1* Scope. This standard shall cover the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems for protection against fire hazards in residential buildings up to and including four stories in height. If the intent is to allow 13R systems in the residential portions of a mixed use building, whether a 508 or 509, then the IBC needs to be amended accordingly. Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Safe Buildings Save Lives ! -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question I agree with you, and the TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems has adopted language for Chapter 1 of 13R that is intended to finally clarify the appropriate application of the standard. If ratified at the code hearing, the standard will be applicable buildings of residential occupancy and their accessory non-residential uses only; the only way that a single structure would have sprinkler systems designed to different standards is if it is fire-separated to the extent that the areas are considered separate buildings in accordance with the building code for that construction type. These separations may be horizontal and/or vertical. I've tried to transcribe Log #21, proposal 13R-2 below: Revise the scope of NFPA 13R to read: 1.1* Scope. This standard shall cover the design and installation of automatic sprinkler systems for protection against fire hazards in residential buildings up to and including four stories in height. Revise A.1.1 as amended by Proposal 13R-58, Proposal 13R-57, Proposal 13R-56, to read as follows: A.1.1 NFPA 13R is appropriate for use only in buildings that are entirely residential occupancies up to and including four stories in height. Residential occupancies are defined in this standard. The height of the building is as defined in the applicable building code. It is the intent of this standard that if NFPA 13R is appropriate for use, that it be used throughout the entire building. It is recognized that incidental and accessory areas, as defined by the applicable building code, might exist within that residential occupancy. Such incidental and accessory areas would typically be considered by the applicable building code to be part of the residential occupancy and subject to the requirements for the residential occupancy by. Where buildings are greater than four stories in height, or where buildings are of mixed use, such buildings should be protected throughout with NFPA 13. Where structures of mixed use can be totally separated so that a residential occupancy is considered a separate building under the applicable building code, NFPA 13R can be used in the building of entirely residential occupancy while NFPA 13 is used in the other building(s). (Examples of incidental and accessory occupancies found in residential occupancies can include: management offices, private parking garages/areas within a dwelling unit, community
