The 13R technical committee first addressed it because the IBC didn’t really do a very good job with it several cycles ago. Actually it should have been the 13 TC since when does a lower level of protection standard dictate combining with a higher level system (but that’s s different story).
I attempted to have the annex of 13R changed by a TIA since it is wrong (regarding must be a separate building). The starting point in wrapping ones mind around combining 13 and 13R in a single building is to realize that the IBC allows some combinations of occupancies to have a portion of the building protected with a 13 system and another portion to have NO PROTECTION AT ALL. From that point on, it’s easy to accept that some conditions exist where part of the building is 13 and part is 13R. Business continuity is NOT a concern of the code like it is within the 13 mindset (so burning off the roof is ok if the top floor is residential but the lower floors are commercial). A vague rule of thumb is that depending upon the occupancies (since some occupancies require sprinklers through the BUILDING per 903.1.1) if the building is classified as a Separated Mixed occupancies it COULD allow both types of systems within the single building. I’m surprised that this group has a problem with this issue since I assume everyone has a FREE subscription to Sprinkler Age. We did an article in 2013 on it. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Apr 22, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Cahill, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Why does NFPA 13x committees deal > with this? Most (not all) of us in the US work with I codes and it's rather > clear to me what to use. I don't work in NFPA 5000 but ASSUME it's similar. > IBC tells me which variant to use, NFPA 13x only tells me how to do it. > (Avoiding the vernacular code/standard out of respect for Greenman.) So the > NFPA Committees can change or say anything they want and it's pointless. > Hell, they could say 13D for residential high-rises and NFPA 13D Committee > would have little they could do about it. > > Not that dissimilar to NFPA 409 and IBC 412. In 409 ch. 5 they have all > sorts of requirements for a building that are not required if following the > basics of IBC. For example, rated walls are not required in many hangars if > you meet the height and area limits for mixed use. Don't need to protect the > columns and don't need draft curtains, etc. True, a few places might legally > adopt 409 in its entirety or you get there from insurance but that's not > routine. > > Chris Cahill, PE* > Associate Fire Protection Engineer _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
