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: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
