John, That's a great answer as far as it goes. I'd like to add, for Garth's benefit, that these types of determinations are in the realm of responsibility for the architects and engineerrs and not the fire sprinkler contractor. If at the point of the project that a sprinkler contractor has been issued a notice to proceed (accompanied by the standard engineering plans and specifications: "Design/build a sprinkler system per NFPA 13 and local codes"), and the jurisdiction has agreed with the architect that this arrangement is indeed a single building, and that the arrangement of single riser is acceptable as described, then the sprinkler contractor should proceed as though the arrangement is correct. Certainly he wouldn't question whether there was adequate glazing area or if HVAC calculations were correct, but if he does feel that the arrangement is not correect then he should register his concern, in writing, with his employer (probably the mech sub or GC) and proceed. The GC should kick this concern up to his employer, the architect, who should review the issues and determine whether the original concept is sound or not. If none of this happens then negligence does not rest with the sprinkler contractor but with one of other, higher parties in the chain.
On 9/11/07, John Drucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A question without a simple answer. From the building code a building is > merely defined as " Any structure used or intended for supporting or > sheltering any use or occupancy". That in itself defines the difference > between a building and a structure. A home is a building, a radio > transmission tower a structure. > > With that said a covered mall is an example of a large multiuse single > building. Don't let the zoning issues steer you astray, theres no telling > what some land use law could allow. It is entirely possible that a building > could project over or require access through another lot, a deeded easement > is just one method to do this. The building code actually makes reference > that land use, i.e. zoning issues are outside the scope of the building > code. > > If one desires to use the term building in the context of the building code > they must do so in complete compliance with the building code. Its simply > not acceptable to pick and choose the sections "that work". With that said > in order for this complex of buildings to be considered a single building > the full width and breadth of the building code need be applied. > > First determine the occupancy (and more specifically the most stringent > occupancy) construction type, height and area. Add the building areas (also > referred to as the footprint) together. This represents the total building > area just as we would do with a single large building. Now take all of this > information and review it utilzing Table 503 of the IBC. Can we build this > building in accordance with the table ?. Either yes or no we must consider > the two modifiers that modify the tabular (the numbers found in the table) > height and area limitations. Fire Sprinklers and Open Frontage are two such > modifiers, verify if using either or both of these modifiers allows the > building to fall within the permissable (tabular + modifiers) building area. > This is essentially what 2006 IBC 503.1.2 (Buildings on same lot) says. > > If the "building" in question has passed muster so far, then means of > egress(IBC Chapt 10) (number of exits, travel distance, etc) must be > considered. Next consider the fire protection requirements (IBC Chapt 9) > (Sprinklers, Standpipes, Fire Alarms) ....... I think everyone gets the > idea and its not a simple process. As a code official when this question > arises it is the design professional who must prove compliance not the other > way around. A single large building will actually gravatate to a more > stringent construction type, means of egress and fire protection. (just to > name a few). > > There is one example I'd like to share and that has to do with occupant > load. The IBC (2006 IBC 1004.2 for those who want to check) stipulates a > provision wherein the occupant load of a building may be increased beyond > that listed in the "Maximum Floor Area Allowances Per Occupant" Table > (1004.1.1). But to do this the designer is directed by the code section that > "all other requirements of the code are also met". In other words theres a > synergy implied in the code. If you want a glass of milk (versus say a glass > of water) you need to buy the whole cow. So no picking and choosing. > > Hope that sheds some light on the whole thing. PS- Don't leave out the > requirements of NFPA-13,14, 20............ > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Building Inspector > New Jersey > > Safe Buildings Save Lives ! > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
