Than you all for your valued opinions and expertise, especially your I.B.C./U.B.C./C.F.C. references.
In the 2nd to last paragraph in the 2010 California Fire Code 903.2.8 'When not used in accordance with section 504.2 or 506.3 of the California Building Code an Automatic Sprinkler System installed in accordance with section 903.3.1.2 shall be allowed in Group R-2.1 Occupancies. Is it safe to assume that a R-2 occupancy used in accordance with section 504.2 or 506.3 of the 2010 C.F.C. be allowed to be installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 of the 2010 C.F.C. George Medina Jr. Mobile: 323-906-5701 -----Original Message----- From: Travis Mack <tm...@mfpdesign.com> To: sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 11:04 am 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:tm...@mfpdesign.com 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: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> Cahill, Christopher >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 10:41 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> 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 >> ccah...@burnsmcd.com >> 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: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >> Forest Wilson >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:39 AM >> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> 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 >>> galen.tay...@fire.lacounty.gov >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >>> Steve Leyton >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:06 AM >>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> 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: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of >>> rongreenman . >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:45 AM >>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> 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. < >>> masorn...@kfi-eng.com> 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: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org [mailto: >>>> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George >>>> Medina Jr >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:18 AM >>>> To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org >>>> 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 >>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl >>>> er.org >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ron Greenman >>> Instructor >>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology >>> Bates Technical College >>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>> >>> rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu >>> >>> 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 >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler >>> >>> .org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
