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: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:04 PM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:52 PM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (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: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (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: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
