John,
NFPA 13R states sprinklers are not required under a roof or deck above a
carport, 6.6.5.1, (13 ed.). From your description it sounds like a Carport.
NFPA 13R addresses Type V construction.
That would be a question for the local AHJ to answer.
Regards,
G. Tim Stone
G. Tim Stone
This is outside the scope of the NFPA standards. It is in the realm of the
local Building or Fire Code to determine the If required.
Mark at Aero
602 820-7894
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of John Irwin via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 2:55 AM
To:
I have a 3-story, 13R building. Type IIB construction. On the "engineered" bid
set, no sprinklers are shown in the covered parking area. This area is inside
the footprint of the first floor, with 2nd floor units being located above the
parking area. There are no garage doors and the parking
John,
I have always put sprinklers on the parking level in a situation as you
describe. The argument for sprinklers is that if one car catches fire without
sprinkler protection, you lose the entire building. Over 46 years working in
Florida and I have always done it...AHJ will be the final
Are their standpipes in this building ?
John Drucker
From: Sprinklerforum on behalf
of tstone52--- via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 07:46
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: tston...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Covered Parking in 13R
No.
John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection
"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
is forgotten." - Benjamin Franklin
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of John Drucker via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:42 AM
To:
If you work in Florida you should know that the AHJ doesn’t have the final say.
The code does. And while I agree that I would like to see sprinklers there, I
need to know if they are required as this is a BID situation.
John Irwin
Quick Response Fire Protection
“The bitterness of poor
Is the hanger on the pipe supplying a flexible drop to a pendant sprinkler
in a ceiling still required to one that prevents upward movement?
Sections 9.2.3.4.4.1,9.2.3.5.2.2
Thank you,
Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager
*TOTAL Mechanical*
*Building* *Integrity*
W234
In my opinion, no. The flexible drop assembly is anchored to the ceiling.
The point of this requirement is to keep the pendent sprinkler from moving
upwards during activation. The flexible drop assembly accomplishes this
requirement.
Thanks,
John
John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President,
I'd agree with John for the very same reason he thinks (intent of the
requirement) no, but I'll bet there are AHJs out there that will read the
rulebook differently, citing no exception stated, and without concern for
intent, and say yes, you need to do it. And probably even some that agree
that
This has been addressed in the 2016 Edition:
9.2.3.4.4.4 and 9.2.3.5.2.2 both state “unless flexible sprinkler hose fittings
are used”.
So it doesn’t say it in 2013 Edition, but it’s clear what the intent was an the
direction the code is going.
-Kyle M
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of
I will at the 2022 edition and see if we can add something. Maybe in the
Annex.
Thanks,
John
John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w: firesprinkler.org
All the listed flexible drop installation hardware restrain the sprinkler, but
not necessarily to the ceiling. Some have gripping hardware supported by
threaded rod “from the structure above". The gripping hardware is useful when
the architect has some new fangled, odd ceiling design that does
Thanks everyone for the input. My fitter brought this up to me and after I
read the sections I was still not sure. John’s comment makes perfect
sense.
Thank you,
Dewayne Martinez
Fire Protection Design Manager
*TOTAL* *Mechanical*
*Building* *Integrity*
W234 N2830 Paul Rd.
Pewaukee,
The Bracket IS the LAST hanger, per Flex manufacturers I have talked to,
but,
NFSA gave us an opinion that a 13" arm-over to a Flex still needs a hanger
if you are over 100 psi, 'cause that's what the book says.
*Jeff Garrison*
*248-331-6164 - cell*
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:36 PM Dewayne
Yes sir - it was added for the 2016 edition of NFPA 13 and remained the
same for the 2019 edition. Problem solved.
Thanks,
John
John August Denhardt, PE
*Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services*
*American Fire Sprinkler Association*
m: p: 301-343-1457
214-349-5965 ext 121
w:
Matt,
My main concern with your application would be that the section you are
referring to doesn't apply to the situation you are describing. You can't
apply a rule to spacing off a wall that is meant for offsetting a line due
to an obstruction. Two different sections/situations. You say you
Kudo’s Skylar.
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of Skyler Bilbo via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 6:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Skyler Bilbo
Subject: Re: Covered Parking in 13R
I don't think this has been said yet on this thread, but I think it is
Any argument to what should be equivalent to the standard doesn't matter if
the standard blatantly doesn't allow it (unless you are a PE and want to
sign off on it, and get the AHJ to do so, as well). Feel free to try and
change the standard.
By your logic, you could take the small room rule,
Residential use above a parking garage changes the occupancy requirement to
a mixed use and NFPA 13 design criteria is required. Therefore protect the
garage. Am I on the right track here?
Art Tiroly
ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
216-621-8899
216-570-7030 cell
I don't think this has been said yet on this thread, but I think it is
worth mentioning. It is not a fire sprinkler contractor's job to decide
where sprinklers are required, and/or which standard is applicable (NFPA
13/13R). I know we all probably do this, but we really shouldn't. I would
bet
I think so. I have 2 just like this that I am figuring this way13 R
upstairs NFPA Parkling downstairs.
John W. Farabee
561-707-5150
On Friday, May 29, 2020, 05:50:22 PM EDT, Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum
wrote:
#yiv8323256408 #yiv8323256408 -- _filtered {} _filtered
I may have mis-stated the scenario.
The sprinklers along the wall would be 5-0 from the wall as allowed by code.
The next line of sprinklers would be 10-9 away, with 9' spacing along the line
as allowed by code...if the line was moved to accommodate an obstruction. What
the code is saying is
Check with the AHJ. I’m not sure you can change from 13 to 13R in the same
building. You can use residential rules in a 13 system of course. Do you have
combustible concealed spaces in the residential?
Art Tiroly
ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
216-621-8899
NFPA13 talks about shifting ESFR heads to avoid obstructions, but is there any
concern with moving them when there is not an obstruction (within the spacing
rules).
We have a situation where a small wall bump-out effectively spaces some ESFR
heads over 10', but less than 11' - along with all
The situations causing the shift are not the same, but would the resulting
protection level be the same or better? If it is ok to shift the sprinklers for
an obstruction, is the protection less effective to shift without an
obstruction?
Matt
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of Skyler Bilbo
One other thing to watch – if they are considering the S2 and R occupancies to
be separate buildings based on a horizontal assembly – IBC 510.2 requires that
the lower areas have sprinklers – no NFPA 13 q’s needed. I got hung up on that
one recently.
Matt
From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf
Of
Matt,
For what it’s worth (probably less than $0.02), I agree with you that it should
provide an equivalent level of protection to be, say 5’-6” off of the wall as
it would be if you were 11’-0” between sprinkler heads due to some obstruction.
I suppose someone could make a strong argument
28 matches
Mail list logo
