That's what I was alluding to and that Ken reiterated. You can take credit with a 13R for certain things that require the building to be furnished throughout with "an approved automatic fire sprinkler system" but increase in height and area are not among those certain things and that mistake is made ALL the time. The committee has been wrestling with how to deal with mixed occupancies for three cycles. Once upon a time it was simple: if the building is classified as multiple occupancies, then it was a 13 (or should have been). Now we have to determine if residential is the "predominant" use or not. If it is, such as a hotel, then the other uses such as A, B and S2 occupancies are considered accessory and you design per 13R but protect areas outside the dwelling per 13. AS PRESCRIBED IN 13R.
But if you read A.1.1 in the 2013 edition of 13R, you will see a provision that states, "Where buildings of mixed use can be totally separated so that the residential portion is considered a separate building under the local code, NFPA 13R can be used in the residential portion while NFPA 13 is used in the rest of the building." This part requires that all the stakeholders put on their thinking caps and determine 1) Do the occupancy separations qualify as building separations and, 2) Is it cost-effective to offer up separate bases of design in such a circumstance. I would postulate that in 99% of cases, it's just a helluva lot easier to treat mixed uses as 13 and primarily residential uses as 13R. 13R offers a much wider range of flexibility than many users of the standard are aware of, and includes provisions for more conservative design in the non-dwelling areas. There have been some roof burn-offs in Type 5 buildings that prompted proposals to require sprinklers in combustible concealed spaces the last two cycles, but those proposals were rejected. The life-safety record of 13R systems is still exemplary, even in buildings with a certain amount of non-residential uses ... The foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the opinion or intent of the NFPA 13D/13R Technical Committee on Residential Sprinkler Systems. SML -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? I too have seen this more than once. About to start on a motel where the architect took an allowance for increased building size (thus requiring a 13 system), but the project engineer specified a 13R system. When they get that worked out, I'll start design. Ed Kramer Lawrence, KS -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? Agree as well. I am no IBC expert, but I do know a couple instances where the architect can take an allowance and it drives the system to 903.3.1.1 instead of 903.3.1.2 of the IBC. I always check these on all projects where 13R may be applicable. If I find what I feel is an error, I will call the architect and point out my concerns. I can't tell you how many times the architectural firms say they were unaware of the difference in those two sections. My first check is to always go with the code study analysis and then if it doesn't make sense, I throw it back to the architect and make them do the final determination. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:[email protected] On 4/22/2014 10:59 AM, Parsley Consulting wrote: > I have to agree with Steve. There has been many a multi-family > project cross my plan review table with the system designed to NFPA > 13R because "the architect called it out on the drawings", while also > taking several allowances for a fully sprinklered building. Thanks to > Steve, and a couple of others, I'm now well aware of the limitations > in the IBC (CBC out here), which allow that to be done only if the > design of the system conformed to NFPA 13. Some pretty high profile > architectural firms have made that error, stamped and sealed their > drawings. > > A significant number of AHJ's don't seem to know that's the case, at > least based on the training classes I've attended and taught. More's > the pity. > > Ken > > > On 4/22/2014 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton wrote: >> Chris: >> >> You know we're buds, right? Good, 'cause that's just >> regoddamnediculous. "Many AHJ's don't have all the information >> ..."??? TFB - they owe their customers the professional service to >> acquire and apply that information. You wanna be sued into oblivion >> after a fire loss? Do the code analysis apart from the enforcing >> agency (especially if someone can show evidence later of >> correspondence or opinion by the AHJ that maybe it should have been a >> different basis of design) and then prosecute your work based on that >> "independent" opinion. >> >> I agree that the architect is in responsible charge and typically >> they do a code analysis. But they very often simply put "Sprinklers >> - Yes" or words to that effect into the note block. It says in the >> code which design to use and if the Architect can't or won't answer, >> then the BO should have the final say. Legally, in most cities and >> states, they do have the final say. >> >> SML >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Cahill, Christopher >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 10:41 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? >> >> I agree Arch is better to ask. As a sprinkler contractor you >> probably don't have all the information to ask correctly. Many AHJ's >> don't have all the information either. I've seen many a project go >> forward on this issue long before an AHJ sees it. And if you call the >> fire marshal because that's who the sprinkler permit is through >> probably the building official approved the type of sprinkler. I was >> an AHJ for a long time and wouldn't answer. I'd ask you what the >> Arch said and the building official agreed to. If I discovered a >> problem later I took it up with the building official. When I was an >> contractor I sure drove a lot of Arch's nuts asking. And yes they >> rarely knew the answer. We'd talk it out and caveat the bid. >> >> Chris Cahill, PE* >> Associate Fire Protection Engineer >> Burns & McDonnell >> Phone: 952.656.3652 >> Fax: 952.229.2923 >> [email protected] >> www.burnsmcd.com >> *Registered in: MN >> >> >> Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work >> For >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Forest Wilson >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:39 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? >> >> I ask the Architect. >> The problem with asking the AHJ is that they can change their mind >> later. >> In Ohio, most of their approval stamps have an exception clause. >> Ask the Architect, let the Architect ask the AHJ. >> Then if the AHJ changes their mind, the Architect is caught in the >> middle of the dispute. >> >> >> On 4/22/2014 12:28 PM, Taylor, Galen wrote: >>> Let me add to what Steve just said: During the building plan check >>> process a trade-off may occur in which an otherwise acceptable 13R >>> system is required to be upgraded to a full 13 system. This fact may >>> or may not be fully revealed upfront to bidding contractors, so it >>> pays to ask. And any questions you have concerning the application >>> of the code should be directed to the AHJ. >>> >>> Galen Taylor >>> County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Engineering >>> 323-890-4339 >>> [email protected] >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Steve Leyton >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:06 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? >>> >>> I'm a little late to this thread, but I did want to address the >>> initial question, i.e. when do you use this standard or that standard. >>> Notwithstanding the annex language in 13R that's intended to clarify >>> its application, the bottom line answer is that it's up to the building >>> official. If you - as a bidding contractor or design consultant or >>> whatever your stake in the issue - cannot clearly determine the >>> applicable standard, a formal query should be directed to the >>> building official with jurisdiction. >>> >>> Steve L. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> rongreenman . >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:45 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? >>> >>> Go Mark! >>> >>> And even if the garages are used by non-tenants I believe the 13R >>> designation could still apply. If you look at 13R and garages, and >>> I'm imagining the 2007 edition so it may have changed, there are >>> three criteria for garages in 13R. Depending on how they >>> communicate, or don't, with each other and the building itself seems >>> to define how they are defined for design purposes. As Mark says, >>> just because 13R references you to 13 for a single point of design >>> to follow in a special circumstance doesn't necessarily mean you >>> default entirely to 13. 13 references 24 but we don't install all >>> the piping to 24 (although I did once see a backflow installed about >>> 20 feet off the floor, with glanded flanges, Megalugs and rodding). >>> 13 also references 72 but because I have to do a thing (hook up >>> alarm stuff) doesn't mean it completely trumps everything else. I >>> know this is silly but it's not far off. Just because 13R looks a >>> lot like 13 doesn't make it the same. A zebra looks like a stripe > d >> h >>> orse.... >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> A word of caution regarding semantics: >>>> >>>> The building is either designed to 13 or 13R. There is no "13 for >>>> this area and 13R for that area." If the garages are considered >>>> part of the building and the building is eligible for 13R (as this >>>> one appears it may >>>> be) then the building is designed to 13R. The garage calculations >>>> would be done to 13R (which happens to reference 13 rules, except >>>> for the hose allowances). >>>> >>>> Only if the garages are determined to be separate buildings would >>>> be able to say 13R for the main building and 13 for the garages. >>>> >>>> This sounds petty on the surface, but when we use these terms >>>> loosely, the Architects and plumbing engineers pick up on it and >>>> start spreading false >>>> premises: >>>> >>>> "We're gonna design these rooms to that 13R code and these areas to >>> 13." >>>> "You need residential sprinklers everywhere, except the laundry >>>> rooms, because those have to be designed to 13." >>>> "The apartments above are to 13R but the first floor mercantile - >>>> including the open stair to the apartments- is designed to 13." >>>> >>>> No, No, and No. One building - one design standard. >>>> >>>> Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire >>>> Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: >>>> 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto: >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of George >>>> Medina Jr >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:18 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: NFPA-13R or NFPA-13? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Forum, >>>> Can anyone please add there 2 cents in and help clarify when to >>>> classify as a 13 system versus a 13R I have a project that consist >>>> of >>>> 3 stories with an occupancy of R2/S2 and Construction Type VA. The >>>> project is lay ed out like a horse shoe with 3 sides and a >>>> corridor running down the middle from >>>> 1 required stairwell to another on the opposite end, with a >>>> court yard in the middle. There are private garages around the >>>> perimeter of the building (which all have access from a common 1st >>>> floor corridor >>>> only) All the Garages have a 2 hour separation between them and the >>>> 2nd level residential units and the 1st floor corridor. There are >>>> residential units on the 1st floor (opposite the garages) facing >>>> the >>> court yard. >>>> I figured the Garage calculations shall conform to NFPA-13, based >>>> on NFPA-13R (2013ed.) Sec. 7.3.1. My question is if the building >>>> can be classified as a 13R (with garage areas calced at NFPA-13) or >>>> should it be classified as a NFPA-13 with dwelling units & >>>> residential heads (calculations based on the greater of the >>>> area/density @ .10 or the head listing). If not, what is the >>>> determining factor or the >>> threshold. >>>> George Medina Jr. >>>> Mobile: 323-906-5701 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkl >>>> er.org >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ron Greenman >>> Instructor >>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College >>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>> >>> 253.680.7346 >>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>> >>> Member: >>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>> >>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>> >>> A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. >>> Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler >>> >>> .org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler.org >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
