It's in our adopted 2011 IFC, and was in our adopted 2003 IFC as well. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel Chaim Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: balcony protection - 13R
What year in the IFC is this ? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Smith, Steven D. (CSFD) Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: balcony protection - 13R That same section is in the IFC. The commentary for that section reads: Balconies, decks and patios in buildings of Type V construction and used for Group R occupancies are required to have sprinkler protection when there is a roof or deck above. This is in addition to the requirements of NFPA 13R, which primarily addresses the life safety of occupants and not property protection. The intent is to address hazards such as frilling and similar activities. Since NFPA 13R does not require such coverage, there is potential that a fire on a balcony could grow much too large for the system within the building to handle. The concern is that a potential exterior balcony fire could spread to unprotected floor/ceiling assemblies and attic spaces and result in major property damage. Section 308.1.4 specifically addresses restrictions on open flame cooking devices used on combustible balconies. Regardless of whether the exterior walking surface is attached to the building and called a balcony or is a freestanding structure such as a deck or patio, the concern for fire ignition in the area adjacent to the exterior wall is the same. Sidewall sprinklers should be selected based on the area of coverage and climate. If the potential for freezing exits, a dry sidewall sprinkler should be used. Where the overhanging deck or balcony is extensive, an extended coverage sprinkler should be selected. >From what I understand with your original email, I believe there is a good case for a sidewall below the 12-inch projection above this deck. Granted, it may not be considered a roof or deck above, however the patio below will allow for cooking as the commentary states. If the projection is combustible then I'd say yes. There is enough of a projection to "protect" the sidewall from damage and a fire of decent size will most likely produce enough radiant heat to trigger the sprinkler. I don't believe that sprinklers would be required BELOW the 1st floor deck as you mentioned. Granted that is my opinion base on what I know of the situation. If you were to go forth with omitting the sprinklers, then you will most likely need to obtain a variance from the Building Official. Steve Smith Colorado Springs FD -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 8:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: balcony protection - 13R The IBC states the following: 903.3.1.2.1 Balconies. Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies and ground-floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. Sidewall sprinklers that are used to protect such areas shall be permitted to be located such that their deflectors are within 1 inch (25 mm) to 6 inches (152 mm) below the structural members, and a maximum distance of 14 inches (356 mm) below the deck of the exterior balconies that are constructed of open wood joist construction. I am working on a project which is a complex of apartment buildings which are all protected per 13R. The architect just discovered this section and now wants us to add sprinklers. The problem is that only the first floor units have decks and they are located 3-5 ft above grade. Atbove the door on to the patio is a projection approximately 12" out from the building. Dry sidewall sprinklers are to be installed under this. Obviously they are not going to do anything and they do not address what this section is talking about. However, the wording does not directly reference sprinklers being located beneath the balcony above. Nor does it address a minimum size projection. One of my fears is that if we convince him that the sprinklers are only required when a deck is above, the we will end up having to install sprinklers in the 3-5 ft space under the ground floor deck. FWIW, the owner is willing to pay for this. Any thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ment s/20111108/515e0aa1/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ment s/20111108/22b6b91b/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
