Careful now, note "d" is only if the building didn't require sprinklers. There's a lot to this issue than just a Table and one note.
Who is saying to protect the structure and what parts of the structure in particular and why and to what resistance rating? We live in a world of gloriously optimistic anticipation that every sprinkler system will perform flawlessly and exactly as designed when called upon to perform its duties. But those insurance guys, now they might have a different perspective. ;) NOTE: New address and phone numbers Effective 4/11/2016 Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Fire proofing and column protection for non-storage applications ok, 'note d' from the table then. And wouldn't we get into endless difficulties, as sprinkler system desiners, if we could not count on everything working as designed? On Apr 25, 2016 4:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes there can be requirements to provide fire resistive rated steel > framing in various occupancies. But that should not concern you as > the sprinkler contractor unless someone has identified using column > spray as the means to achieve their fire resistive rating based on the > allowance of such within the fire code. > > Different Construction Types as defined within IBC 602 require > different parts of a structure to be provided with various fire resistance > ratings. > > As an example, if you had a building that did not require sprinklers > per code but that required 1-hour fire resistance rating on steel > columns, per Table 601 note "d." by putting in automatic sprinklers > you would satisfy the 1-hour rating requirement. BUT, if the building > already required sprinklers per code, those required sprinklers would > not count towards satisfying the 1-hour rating. > > Now if the resistance rating is 2-hours or more, you are out of the > picture and passive protection must be used unless you want to do some > "time-to-failure" type calculations on the structural elements > requiring protection and prove your sprinkler flow will meet the > requirements but most insurers I've dealt with would prefer passive > fire protection of structures in lieu of active (sprinklers) since any > impairment to the sprinkler system could result in you having no > protection for the structure at all. At least with passive > protection, if applied and maintained properly, there is protection > regardless of whether or not mechanical systems fail. > > NOTE: New address and phone numbers > Effective 4/11/2016 > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > CH2M > 200 Verdae Blvd. > Greenville, SC 29607 > Direct - 864.920.7540 > Fax - 864.920.7129 > CH2MHILL Extension 77540 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad > Casterline > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 4:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Fire proofing and column protection for non-storage > applications > > Speaking only as someone whom has been pestering the Code People in > adjacent cubicles for several years, from IBC: > In a one story steel structure, whether Assembly or Storage, if > sprinklered, the columns would require no fire resistive rating, the > kicker being a non-stated but accepted 'note e', I think, type > understanding that sprinklers provide a One Hour defacto rating, if > they are not used for height and/or area increases. > So in your case, if the situation was such that your columns required > 2 hours resistance, it is questionable whether or not column > sprinklers would provide that extra hour, whether Assembly or Storage. > My feeling is it would be fine, but I have only modeled the max temp > of non-sprinklered columns, for one hour. > I think if you posted some detail some of the Code Gurus could put the > thread to bed in hurry :) On Apr 25, 2016 9:36 AM, "rongreenman ." < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Look in your building and fire code. 13 tells you how, not when. > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mark Phillips > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Sounds like an alternate means and methods > > > > > > I have seen it done using NFPA 15 as a guide. (usually exposure > > protection) > > > > > > I seem to recall having to do it in an aircraft hanger also NFPA > > > 409 > > > > > > Its Monday and coffee level is low but hope that points you in the > > > right direction > > > > > > Mark Phillips > > > Project Manager > > > > > > Celebrating 90 Years in Business > > > Bolton Construction and Service, LLC > > > 1623 Old Louisburg Road > > > Raleigh NC, 27604 > > > Ph: 919-861-1500 > > > Fax: 919-834-4835 > > > www.boltonservice.com > > > Since 1925 > > > > > > Residential / Commercial: Plumbing * Heating * Air > > > Conditioning * Electrical * Generators * Fire > Sprinkler > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Sean > > Lockyer > > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 1:47 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Fire proofing and column protection for non-storage > > > applications > > > > > > Is there a requirement for the fire proofing and/or column > > > protection of steel columns in non-storage applications ? Every > > > mention of fire > > proofing > > > and/or column protection in NFPA 13 involves this taking place in > > > a > > storage > > > occupancy such as tire storage, rack storage, etc. > > > > > > However, is there a separate requirement for the fire proofing of > > > steel columns in say, assembly occupancies ? If there is, where > > > would I find > > this > > > ? In addition, is column protection an acceptable alternative in > > > such an instance. For clarification, I am NOT referring to the > > > fire proofing of steel bar joists in office buildings, etc. > > > > > > > > > Sean Lockyer > > > Project Designer 4617 > > > Parkbreeze Court > > > Cell 386-279-1197 > Orlando, > > > Florida 32808 > > > [email protected] Phone: > > > 407-816-9101 > > > www.AITLifeSafety.com Fax: > > > 407-816-9104 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > kl > > er.org > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > kl > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ron Greenman > > > > 4110 Olson Dr., NW > > Gig Harbor, WA 98335 > > > > [email protected] > > > > 253.576.9700 > > > > 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 > > kl > > er.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-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
