I wanted to follow up and let everyone who helped me think through the process know what happened. This was a new two story courthouse (A3) with a combustible attic above the 2nd floor and a single (B) occupancy attached adjacent on the ground floor. IBC 2009. He was sprinklering the basement, 1st and 2nd but not the attic. We met with the Architect and and asked him if he could educate us on his decision tree that allowed:
1. No sprinklers in the combustible attic that was draft stopped every 3,000 ft. 2. Install fire protection on the first and second floors (not required systems in the A3) to allow a reduction in fire rating of the corridor walls, stairs, and the wall separating the courtroom A3 from the B occupancy. 3. His logic for not mandating an increase of the design area on the 2nd floor to 3,000 ft. His answers were: 1. The IBC 2009 doesn't require sprinklers except for the basement, so NFPA 13 isn't applicable. 2. He stated that the IBC allows for reduction with partial systems. 901.2 "exception" 3. He believed that because partial systems are allowed and that because the code didn't require a system in the attic that we wouldn't need to increase our area on the 2nd floor even though the combustible attic above was unsprinklered. We took the advice of GC / Roland and others and listened and accepted what he said. The tone of the meeting was very good and at the end of the day I am glad he chose more sprinklers than required in lieu of more rating. I personally don't agree with the lack of increase in area ( question #3) but as it has been pointed out...... not my decision. Thanks for all the input and help. We learn and move on. Rod DiBona Rapid Fire Protection _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
