Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Bruce Verhei]

Single lead in.

I do you mean a single tap at the main? At some point I’d expect a ‘T’. 

I assume separate meters are required. The water agencies want you to 
individually pay, so you’ll use less. Isn’t this the norm nationally?

Best.

Bruce Verhei 

> On Feb 9, 2018, at 12:08, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> John, why don't we take this in pieces to see how it shakes out.
> "This is the garage level of a two family home."
> By the title of the standard, "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler 
> Systems in One- and Two- Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes" it would 
> seem at first glance that NFPA 13D would be applicable.
>  
> "However, the units are stacked on top of each other."
> So what?  Is there text in NFPA 13D that I'm not reading which says if the 
> two-family home is a two-story that 13D is not applicable?
>  
> "Both units share a single lead-in (also shared with domestic)"
> Again, so what?  Section 6.2.3.1 tells us that the control valve 
> shall be permitted to serve the domestic water supply.
> Review figure A.6.3(d), which clearly indicates a single supply serving two 
> units is acceptable.
> 
> "13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not sprinklered."
> This isn't quite accurate.  The correct phrasing [emphasis mine] 
> from section 8.6.4 is that "Sprinklers shall not be required in garages, open 
> attached porches, carports, and similar structures."  Nothing in the standard 
> says that garages are not to be provided with sprinklers.
> To this end, annex A.8.6.4 gives excellent guidance on how to provide fire 
> sprinklers in a garage if the local AHJ requires that.  Indeed, as Paul said, 
> many jurisdictions here in California certainly do have such a requirement.
> 
> "Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and not 13D."
> Well, that's a completely separate issue. What "code analysis" are you 
> referring to?  Was it perhaps one on the bid drawings done by an architect or 
> engineer of record? I would suggest some sort of RFI to clarify that issue, 
> to be sure.  Providing a sprinkler system for a building of this nature in 
> accordance with NFPA 13 adds an extreme list of potential design criteria 
> which don't seem applicable.
> 
> "Sprinkler “engineered” page calls for 13D and shows no floor control on the 
> garage level.'
> There has to be a control valve serving each of the units per 6.2.3, which 
> states in part "Where more than one dwelling unit is served by the same water 
> supply pipe, each dwelling unit shall have an individual control valve that 
> serves the fire sprinkler system in that dwelling unit..."
> 
> "I think at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the garage 
> exception is just for the garage."
> This may be so, as I doubt such rooms could be considered "closets" in the 
> exceptions allowed in 8.6.3.  
> Do keep in mind that if you do provide sprinklers in these spaces to follow 
> the guidance in 8.2.5 and 8.2.1.3, and 7.5.4
> Let's try this another way, though.  Why do you think -13D isn't the correct 
> standard?
> 
> sincerely,
> Ken Wagoner, SET
> Parsley Consulting
> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> Escondido, California 92025
> Phone 760-745-6181
> Visit the website
>> On 02/09/2018 11:08 AM, John Irwin wrote:
>> Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation. 
>> This is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are 
>> stacked on top of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also shared 
>> with domestic). 13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not sprinklered. 
>> Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler “engineered” 
>> page calls for 13D and shows no floor control on the garage level. (I think 
>> at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the garage exception is 
>> just for the garage)
>>  
>> What say you smart people?
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Re: Abuse of 13D?

[John Irwin]

This project specifically references our Building Code and not Residential Code.

The garage is a shared garage and is spelled out as a P-2 classification.

I believe I've got this figured out. I'll post all my code references on Monday.



⁣John Irwin 
DynaFire Inc. 
Tampa Fire Sprinkler Division 
727-282-9243 

This email was sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, typographical 
errors, and grammatical gaffes.​

On Feb 9, 2018, 8:22 PM, at 8:22 PM, Steve Leyton  
wrote:
>Your code classifies duplexes as multi-family and the attached garages
>as parking structures?  Methinks you’re applying the building code to a
>building that’s governed by the Residential Code.   Or does Florida
>amend the IBC in that regard?Private garages that are accessible
>from the dwelling unit are considered part of the dwelling unit in both
>the IBC and IRC, in both single and multi-family housing formats.   The
>IRC and NFPA 13D except the garage from fire sprinkler protection, but
>neither excludes closets, especially if they contain heat-producing
>equipment.   The standard doesn’t speak to WHERE the closets are,
>except for exterior closets that are excepted because they aren’t
>conditioned and are subject to freezing.
>
>For whatever it’s worth, the requirement to sprinkler garages isn’t
>enforced by “some AHJ’s”; it’s in our amended code and is mandatory
>statewide.   This was a favorable trade we made with homebuilding
>industry stakeholders – in exchange, you don’t have to use more
>expensive Type X drywall unless there’s living space above, and then
>it’s the lid only.   Also, the door between the house and garage
>doesn’t have to be fire rated, so the overall cost savings in building
>materials pays for the added sprinklers in the typical 2-car garage.
>
>[Steve Signature (3)]
>
>From: Sprinklerforum
>[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>John Irwin
>Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 1:23 PM
>To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>Subject: Re: Abuse of 13D?
>
>More information :
>Code analysis says the residential area are R-2 and the Parking level
>is S-2. The Florida Building Code seems to indicate S-2 as a public
>parking garage and when enclosed (which this is) requires protection.
>Additionally S occupencies located below any other type of occupied
>space seem to require sprinkler protection.
>I do believe that the Florida Building Code does allow for the living
>floors to be protected per NFPA 13D though.
>So if this is the case, the sprinkler system in the garage would over
>ride some 13D omissions like monitoring and an FDC.
>Agreed?
>John Irwin
>DynaFire Inc.
>Tampa Fire Sprinkler Division
>727-282-9243
>This email was sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity,
>typographical errors, and grammatical gaffes.
>On Feb 9, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Parsley Consulting
>mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>> wrote:
>I'm not sure the reference to 8.3.8 would apply.
>
>First, John mentioned he was working with the 2010 edition of 13D. That
>edition doesn't contain this language.
>
>Second, if John were working with the '16 edition then 8.3.8 would not
>apply in my opinion as the "storage areas" are not exterior, and are
>only accessed from inside a portion of the dwelling unit.
>
>just my thoughts,
>Ken Wagoner, SET
>Parsley Consulting
>350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
>Escondido, California 92025
>Phone 760-745-6181
>Visit the website<http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/>
>On 02/09/2018 11:56 AM, Fire Design wrote:
>If it's a 13D system then:
>13D 8.3.8Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages and
>exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies,
>exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the
>closet does not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly
>into the dwelling unit.
>
>Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on
>the code analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always
>give the architect a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I agree
>- this layout looks a little odd for a 13D but it is what it is unless
>the local ammendments have anything to add to the situation.
>
>
>
>
>[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>
>Virus-free.
>www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani

Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Ron Greenman]

If Florida code is going to call a garage for a duplex an S2 occupancy, do
you then have to design to OH1 and a 1-hour duration? And Bruce's question
too?

Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Fire Design <
fireprotectiondesi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken, your first point - yes, but on your second point, the closets don't
> have to be exterior - I'm referencing the first exemption 'closets in
> garages' and not the second 'closets on exterior balconies.' I think the
> point is that if you don't have to sprinkler garages then you likewise
> wouldn't sprinkler closets in garages since the closet is 'in the garage.'
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
> <#m_-5588282037030664767_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Parsley Consulting <
> parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure the reference to 8.3.8 would apply.
>>
>> First, John mentioned he was working with the 2010 edition of 13D. That
>> edition doesn't contain this language.
>>
>> Second, if John were working with the '16 edition then 8.3.8 would not
>> apply in my opinion as the "storage areas" are not exterior, and are only
>> accessed from inside a portion of the dwelling unit.
>>
>> just my thoughts,
>>
>> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>>
>>
>>
>> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
>> 760-745-6181 <(760)%20745-6181> Visit the website
>> <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *
>> On 02/09/2018 11:56 AM, Fire Design wrote:
>>
>> If it's a 13D system then:
>> 13D 8.3.8Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages and
>> exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies,
>> exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the closet
>> does not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly
>> into the dwelling unit.
>>
>> Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on the
>> code analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always give the
>> architect a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I agree - this layout
>> looks a little odd for a 13D but it is what it is unless the local
>> ammendments have anything to add to the situation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler garages
>>> for most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊
>>>
>>> Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Paul B. Cetani*
>>>
>>> *Exec. Vice President*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
>>>
>>> *16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A*
>>>
>>> *Morgan Hill, CA 95037*
>>>
>>> *T 408-776-1580 <%28408%29%20776-1580>*
>>>
>>> *F 408-776-1590 <%28408%29%20776-1590>*
>>>
>>> *pa...@norcalfire.com *
>>>
>>> *www.norcalfire.com <http://www.norcalfire.com/>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
>>> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *John Irwin
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
>>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> *Subject:* Abuse of 13D?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation.
>>> This is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are
>>> stacked on top of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also
>>> s

RE: Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Steve Leyton]

Your code classifies duplexes as multi-family and the attached garages as 
parking structures?  Methinks you’re applying the building code to a building 
that’s governed by the Residential Code.   Or does Florida amend the IBC in 
that regard?Private garages that are accessible from the dwelling unit are 
considered part of the dwelling unit in both the IBC and IRC, in both single 
and multi-family housing formats.   The IRC and NFPA 13D except the garage from 
fire sprinkler protection, but neither excludes closets, especially if they 
contain heat-producing equipment.   The standard doesn’t speak to WHERE the 
closets are, except for exterior closets that are excepted because they aren’t 
conditioned and are subject to freezing.

For whatever it’s worth, the requirement to sprinkler garages isn’t enforced by 
“some AHJ’s”; it’s in our amended code and is mandatory statewide.   This was a 
favorable trade we made with homebuilding industry stakeholders – in exchange, 
you don’t have to use more expensive Type X drywall unless there’s living space 
above, and then it’s the lid only.   Also, the door between the house and 
garage doesn’t have to be fire rated, so the overall cost savings in building 
materials pays for the added sprinklers in the typical 2-car garage.

[Steve Signature (3)]

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 1:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Abuse of 13D?

More information :
Code analysis says the residential area are R-2 and the Parking level is S-2. 
The Florida Building Code seems to indicate S-2 as a public parking garage and 
when enclosed (which this is) requires protection. Additionally S occupencies 
located below any other type of occupied space seem to require sprinkler 
protection.
I do believe that the Florida Building Code does allow for the living floors to 
be protected per NFPA 13D though.
So if this is the case, the sprinkler system in the garage would over ride some 
13D omissions like monitoring and an FDC.
Agreed?
John Irwin
DynaFire Inc.
Tampa Fire Sprinkler Division
727-282-9243
This email was sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, typographical 
errors, and grammatical gaffes.
On Feb 9, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Parsley Consulting 
mailto:parsleyconsult...@cox.net>> wrote:
I'm not sure the reference to 8.3.8 would apply.

First, John mentioned he was working with the 2010 edition of 13D. That edition 
doesn't contain this language.

Second, if John were working with the '16 edition then 8.3.8 would not apply in 
my opinion as the "storage areas" are not exterior, and are only accessed from 
inside a portion of the dwelling unit.

just my thoughts,
Ken Wagoner, SET
Parsley Consulting
350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
Escondido, California 92025
Phone 760-745-6181
Visit the website<http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/>
On 02/09/2018 11:56 AM, Fire Design wrote:
If it's a 13D system then:
13D 8.3.8Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages and 
exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies,
exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the closet does 
not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly
into the dwelling unit.

Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on the code 
analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always give the architect 
a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I agree - this layout looks a 
little odd for a 13D but it is what it is unless the local ammendments have 
anything to add to the situation.




[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>

Virus-free. 
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>


On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani 
mailto:pa...@norcalfire.com>> wrote:
This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler garages for 
most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊
Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.

Paul B. Cetani
Exec. Vice President

Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
T 408-776-1580
F 408-776-1590
pa...@norcalfire.com<mailto:pa...@norcalfire.com>
www.norcalfire.com<http://www.norcalfire.com/>

From: Sprinklerforum 
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>]
 On Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Subject: Abuse of 13D?

Ok someone h

Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Fire Design]

Ken, your first point - yes, but on your second point, the closets don't
have to be exterior - I'm referencing the first exemption 'closets in
garages' and not the second 'closets on exterior balconies.' I think the
point is that if you don't have to sprinkler garages then you likewise
wouldn't sprinkler closets in garages since the closet is 'in the garage.'


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Parsley Consulting <
parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

> I'm not sure the reference to 8.3.8 would apply.
>
> First, John mentioned he was working with the 2010 edition of 13D. That
> edition doesn't contain this language.
>
> Second, if John were working with the '16 edition then 8.3.8 would not
> apply in my opinion as the "storage areas" are not exterior, and are only
> accessed from inside a portion of the dwelling unit.
>
> just my thoughts,
>
> *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting*
>
>
>
> * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone
> 760-745-6181 <(760)%20745-6181> Visit the website
> <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *
> On 02/09/2018 11:56 AM, Fire Design wrote:
>
> If it's a 13D system then:
> 13D 8.3.8Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages and
> exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies,
> exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the closet
> does not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly
> into the dwelling unit.
>
> Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on the
> code analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always give the
> architect a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I agree - this layout
> looks a little odd for a 13D but it is what it is unless the local
> ammendments have anything to add to the situation.
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani  wrote:
>
>> This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler garages
>> for most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊
>>
>> Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Paul B. Cetani*
>>
>> *Exec. Vice President*
>>
>>
>>
>> Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
>>
>> *16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A*
>>
>> *Morgan Hill, CA 95037*
>>
>> *T 408-776-1580 <%28408%29%20776-1580>*
>>
>> *F 408-776-1590 <%28408%29%20776-1590>*
>>
>> *pa...@norcalfire.com *
>>
>> *www.norcalfire.com <http://www.norcalfire.com/>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces
>> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *John Irwin
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> *Subject:* Abuse of 13D?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation.
>> This is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are
>> stacked on top of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also
>> shared with domestic). 13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not
>> sprinklered. Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler
>> “engineered” page calls for 13D and shows no floor control on the garage
>> level. (I think at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the
>> garage exception is just for the garage)
>>
>>
>>
>> What say you smart people?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-
>> firesprinkler.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing 
> listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Bruce Verhei]

Why R-2?

Bruce 

> On Feb 9, 2018, at 12:22, John Irwin  wrote:
> 
> More information :
> 
> Code analysis says the residential area are R-2 and the Parking level is S-2. 
> The Florida Building Code seems to indicate S-2 as a public parking garage 
> and when enclosed (which this is) requires protection. Additionally S 
> occupencies located below any other type of occupied space seem to require 
> sprinkler protection. 
> 
> I do believe that the Florida Building Code does allow for the living floors 
> to be protected per NFPA 13D though. 
> 
> So if this is the case, the sprinkler system in the garage would over ride 
> some 13D omissions like monitoring and an FDC.  
> 
> Agreed? 
> 
> John Irwin 
> DynaFire Inc. 
> Tampa Fire Sprinkler Division 
> 727-282-9243 
> 
> This email was sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, 
> typographical errors, and grammatical gaffes.
>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Parsley Consulting  
>> wrote:
>> I'm not sure the reference to 8.3.8 would apply.  
>> 
>> First, John mentioned he was working with the 2010 edition of 13D. That 
>> edition doesn't contain this language.
>> 
>> Second, if John were working with the '16 edition then 8.3.8 would not apply 
>> in my opinion as the "storage areas" are not exterior, and are only accessed 
>> from inside a portion of the dwelling unit.
>> 
>> just my thoughts,
>> Ken Wagoner, SET
>> Parsley Consulting
>> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
>> Escondido, California 92025
>> Phone 760-745-6181
>> Visit the website
>>> On 02/09/2018 11:56 AM, Fire Design wrote:
>>> If it's a 13D system then: 
>>> 13D 8.3.8Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages and 
>>> exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies,
>>> exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the closet 
>>> does not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly
>>> into the dwelling unit.
>>> 
>>> Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on the 
>>> code analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always give the 
>>> architect a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I agree - this layout 
>>> looks a little odd for a 13D but it is what it is unless the local 
>>> ammendments have anything to add to the situation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani  wrote:
>>>> This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler garages 
>>>> for most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊
>>>> 
>>>> Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Paul B. Cetani
>>>> 
>>>> Exec. Vice President
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
>>>> 
>>>> 16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A
>>>> 
>>>> Morgan Hill, CA 95037
>>>> 
>>>> T 408-776-1580
>>>> 
>>>> F 408-776-1590
>>>> 
>>>> pa...@norcalfire.com
>>>> 
>>>> www.norcalfire.com
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Sprinklerforum 
>>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John 
>>>> Irwin
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
>>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>> Subject: Abuse of 13D?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation. 
>>>> This is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are 
>>>> stacked on top of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also 
>>>> shared with domestic). 13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not 
>>>> sprinklered. Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler 
>>>> “engineered” page calls for 13D and shows no floor control on the garage 
>>>> level. (I think at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the 
>>>> garage exception is just for the garage)
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> What say you smart people?
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> 
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Abuse of 13D?

[John Irwin]

More information :

Code analysis says the residential area are R-2 and the Parking level is S-2. 
The Florida Building Code seems to indicate S-2 as a public parking garage and 
when enclosed (which this is) requires protection. Additionally S occupencies 
located below any other type of occupied space seem to require sprinkler 
protection.

I do believe that the Florida Building Code does allow for the living floors to 
be protected per NFPA 13D though.

So if this is the case, the sprinkler system in the garage would over ride some 
13D omissions like monitoring and an FDC. 

Agreed?

⁣John Irwin 
DynaFire Inc. 
Tampa Fire Sprinkler Division 
727-282-9243 

This email was sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, typographical 
errors, and grammatical gaffes.​

On Feb 9, 2018, 3:13 PM, at 3:13 PM, Parsley Consulting 
 wrote:
>I'm not sure the reference to 8.3.8 would apply.
>
>First, John mentioned he was working with the 2010 edition of 13D. That
>
>edition doesn't contain this language.
>
>Second, if John were working with the '16 edition then 8.3.8 would not
>apply in my opinion as the "storage areas" are not exterior, and are
>only accessed from inside a portion of the dwelling unit.
>
>just my thoughts,
>*Ken Wagoner, SET
>*Parsley Consulting***
>*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
>*Escondido, California 92025
>*Phone 760-745-6181*
>Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
>On 02/09/2018 11:56 AM, Fire Design wrote:
>> If it's a 13D system then:
>> 13D 8.3.8    Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages
>> and exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior
>balconies,
>> exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the
>> closet does not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly
>> into the dwelling unit.
>>
>> Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on
>
>> the code analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always
>
>> give the architect a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I
>agree
>> - this layout looks a little odd for a 13D but it is what it is
>unless
>> the local ammendments have anything to add to the situation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>
>>  Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>
><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani > <mailto:pa...@norcalfire.com>> wrote:
>>
>> This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler
>> garages for most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊
>>
>> Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.
>>
>> */Paul B. Cetani/*
>>
>> *Exec. Vice President*
>>
>> **
>>
>> Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
>>
>> *16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A*
>>
>> *Morgan Hill, CA 95037***
>>
>> *T 408-776-1580 *
>>
>> *F 408-776-1590 *
>>
>> _pa...@norcalfire.com <mailto:pa...@norcalfire.com>_
>>
>> _www.norcalfire.com <http://www.norcalfire.com/>_
>>
>> *From:* Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> <mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of *John Irwin
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
>> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> <mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
>> *Subject:* Abuse of 13D?
>>
>> Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D
>> installation. This is the garage level of a two family home.
>> However, the units are stacked on top of each other. Both units
>> share a single lead-in (also shared with domestic). 13D 2010 is
>> pretty clear that garages are not sprinklered. Code analysis page
>> references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler “engineered” page calls
>> for 13D and shows no floor control on the garage level. (I think
>> at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the garage
>> exception is just for the garage)
>>
>> What say you smart people?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>   

Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Parsley Consulting]

I'm not sure the reference to 8.3.8 would apply.

First, John mentioned he was working with the 2010 edition of 13D. That 
edition doesn't contain this language.


Second, if John were working with the '16 edition then 8.3.8 would not 
apply in my opinion as the "storage areas" are not exterior, and are 
only accessed from inside a portion of the dwelling unit.


just my thoughts,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
On 02/09/2018 11:56 AM, Fire Design wrote:

If it's a 13D system then:
13D 8.3.8    Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages 
and exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies,
exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the 
closet does not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly

into the dwelling unit.

Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on 
the code analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always 
give the architect a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I agree 
- this layout looks a little odd for a 13D but it is what it is unless 
the local ammendments have anything to add to the situation.





<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> 




On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani <mailto:pa...@norcalfire.com>> wrote:


This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler
garages for most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊

Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.

*/Paul B. Cetani/*

*Exec. Vice President*

**

Nor Cal Fire, Inc.

*16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A*

*Morgan Hill, CA 95037***

*T 408-776-1580 *

*F 408-776-1590 *

_pa...@norcalfire.com <mailto:pa...@norcalfire.com>_

_www.norcalfire.com <http://www.norcalfire.com/>_

*From:* Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
<mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>] *On
Behalf Of *John Irwin
*Sent:* Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
    *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
*Subject:* Abuse of 13D?

Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D
installation. This is the garage level of a two family home.
However, the units are stacked on top of each other. Both units
share a single lead-in (also shared with domestic). 13D 2010 is
pretty clear that garages are not sprinklered. Code analysis page
references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler “engineered” page calls
for 13D and shows no floor control on the garage level. (I think
at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the garage
exception is just for the garage)

What say you smart people?


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
<mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

<http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>




___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Parsley Consulting]

John, why don't we take this in pieces to see how it shakes out.

 * "This is the garage level of a two family home."
 o By the title of the standard, "Standard for the Installation of
   Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two- Family Dwellings and
   Manufactured Homes" it would seem at first glance that NFPA 13D
   would be applicable.
 * "However, the units are stacked on top of each other."
 o So what?  Is there text in NFPA 13D that I'm not reading which
   says if the two-family home is a two-story that 13D is not
   applicable?
 * "Both units share a single lead-in (also shared with domestic)"
 o Again, so what?  Section 6.2.3.1 tells us that the control valve
   shall be permitted to serve the domestic water supply.
 o Review figure A.6.3(d), which clearly indicates a single supply
   serving two units is acceptable.

 * "13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not sprinklered."
 o This isn't quite accurate.  The correct phrasing [emphasis mine]
   from section 8.6.4 is that "Sprinklers shall not be _*required*_
   in garages, open attached porches, carports, and similar
   structures." Nothing in the standard says that garages are not
   to be provided with sprinklers.
 o To this end, annex A.8.6.4 gives excellent guidance on how to
   provide fire sprinklers in a garage if the local AHJ requires
   that.  Indeed, as Paul said, many jurisdictions here in
   California certainly do have such a requirement.

 * "Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and not 13D."
 o Well, that's a completely separate issue. What "code analysis"
   are you referring to?  Was it perhaps one on the bid drawings
   done by an architect or engineer of record? I would suggest some
   sort of RFI to clarify that issue, to be sure.  Providing a
   sprinkler system for a building of this nature in accordance
   with NFPA 13 adds an extreme list of potential design criteria
   which don't seem applicable.

 * "Sprinkler “engineered” page calls for 13D and shows no floor
   control on the garage level.'
 o There has to be a control valve serving each of the units per
   6.2.3, which states in part "Where more than one dwelling unit
   is served by the same water supply pipe, each dwelling unit
   shall have an individual control valve that serves the fire
   sprinkler system in that dwelling unit..."

 * "I think at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the
   garage exception is just for the garage."
 o This may be so, as I doubt such rooms could be considered
   "closets" in the exceptions allowed in 8.6.3.
 o Do keep in mind that if you do provide sprinklers in these
   spaces to follow the guidance in 8.2.5 and 8.2.1.3, and 7.5.4

Let's try this another way, though.  Why do you think -13D isn't the 
correct standard?


sincerely,

*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit the website  ***
On 02/09/2018 11:08 AM, John Irwin wrote:

Capture

Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D 
installation. This is the garage level of a two family home. However, 
the units are stacked on top of each other. Both units share a single 
lead-in (also shared with domestic). 13D 2010 is pretty clear that 
garages are not sprinklered. Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and 
not 13D. Sprinkler “engineered” page calls for 13D and shows no floor 
control on the garage level. (I think at a minimum the storage rooms 
need sprinklers as the garage exception is just for the garage)


What say you smart people?



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org


___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Abuse of 13D?

[Fire Design]

If it's a 13D system then:
13D 8.3.8Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages and
exterior closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies,
exterior breezeways/corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the closet
does not have doors or unprotected penetrations directly
into the dwelling unit.

Is the building classified as an R-3 occupancy? The '13' reference on the
code analysis page might be a mistake if it is but you can always give the
architect a call to see if that's the case. Otherwise I agree - this layout
looks a little odd for a 13D but it is what it is unless the local
ammendments have anything to add to the situation.




<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Paul Cetani  wrote:

> This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler garages
> for most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊
>
> Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.
>
>
>
> *Paul B. Cetani*
>
> *Exec. Vice President*
>
>
>
> Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
>
> *16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A*
>
> *Morgan Hill, CA 95037*
>
> *T 408-776-1580 <(408)%20776-1580>*
>
> *F 408-776-1590 <(408)%20776-1590>*
>
> *pa...@norcalfire.com *
>
> *www.norcalfire.com <http://www.norcalfire.com/>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces@lists.firesprinkler.
> org] *On Behalf Of *John Irwin
> *Sent:* Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Subject:* Abuse of 13D?
>
>
>
> Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation.
> This is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are
> stacked on top of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also
> shared with domestic). 13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not
> sprinklered. Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler
> “engineered” page calls for 13D and shows no floor control on the garage
> level. (I think at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the
> garage exception is just for the garage)
>
>
>
> What say you smart people?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.
> org
>
>
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Abuse of 13D?

[Nick Maneen]

I’m referencing the 2013 Edition of 13D.  

 

1.2.2 A sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in accordance with 
this standard to prevent flashover (total involvement) in the room of the fire 
origin, where sprinklered, and to improve the chance for occupants to escape or 
be evacuated.  

8.3.1 Sprinklers shall be installed in all areas except where omission is 
permitted by 8.3.2 through 8.3.8.

8.3.4 Sprinklers shall not be required in garages, open attached porches, 
carports, or similar structures.  

8.3.5 Sprinklers shall not be required in attics with or without storage…

8.3.6 Sprinklers shall not be required in covered, unheated projections of the 
building at entrances/ exits as long as the dwelling unit has other means of 
egress.

8.3.8 Sprinklers shall not be required in closets in garages and exterior 
closets (regardless of size) located on exterior balconies, exterior 
breezeways/ corridors, or accessed from outdoors where the closet does not have 
unprotected penetrations directly into the unit.  

 

IMHO, I would ask myself the following:

If you called that a “storage closet” as opposed to “storage” would that change 
your opinion?

Are the holiday decorations and unused exercise bikes in the storage room more 
of a hazard than the parked cars?

Do you have to egress through the garage to escape or be evacuated? 

 

I say that the language excluding coverage of certain areas of the building is 
trying to be fairly clear that in 13D situations you are protecting the 
occupied areas of the building only.  When you look at the exclusions as a 
whole, protection is not required.  When I put a budget number on an eerily 
similar building earlier this week I excluded the garage level, including what 
was labeled “Unit 1 Storage” and “Unit 2 Storage”. I did have a sprinkler at 
the bottom of the stair landing or vestibule.  In the 13R option for the 
budget, I included protection in the garage area and closets.  

 


Nick Maneen, SET 

c 704.791.7789

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 2:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Abuse of 13D?

 

Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation. This 
is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are stacked on top 
of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also shared with domestic). 
13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not sprinklered. Code analysis page 
references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler “engineered” page calls for 13D and 
shows no floor control on the garage level. (I think at a minimum the storage 
rooms need sprinklers as the garage exception is just for the garage)

 

What say you smart people?

 

 



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Abuse of 13D?

[Paul Cetani]

This is pretty cut and dry here in Nor Cal. We have to sprinkler garages for 
most of our homes due to local AHJ requirements. 😊
Even if you sprinkler the garage, still seems like 13D to me.

Paul B. Cetani
Exec. Vice President

Nor Cal Fire, Inc.
16840 Joleen Way, Bldg A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
T 408-776-1580
F 408-776-1590
pa...@norcalfire.com<mailto:pa...@norcalfire.com>
www.norcalfire.com<http://www.norcalfire.com/>

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Irwin
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 11:08 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Abuse of 13D?

Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation. This 
is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are stacked on top 
of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also shared with domestic). 
13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not sprinklered. Code analysis page 
references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler “engineered” page calls for 13D and 
shows no floor control on the garage level. (I think at a minimum the storage 
rooms need sprinklers as the garage exception is just for the garage)

What say you smart people?


[cid:image001.png@01D3A197.5B8FA2F0]
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Abuse of 13D?

[John Irwin]

Capture

Ok someone help me make an argument that this is not a 13D installation.
This is the garage level of a two family home. However, the units are
stacked on top of each other. Both units share a single lead-in (also
shared with domestic). 13D 2010 is pretty clear that garages are not
sprinklered. Code analysis page references NFPA 13 and not 13D. Sprinkler
“engineered” page calls for 13D and shows no floor control on the garage
level. (I think at a minimum the storage rooms need sprinklers as the
garage exception is just for the garage)



What say you smart people?
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org