'Sprinklered throughout' by my perceptions, is a weak definition in the Codes and standards, perhaps perpetuated to maintain consulting hours, perhaps to provide agency to the AHJ in making situational calls. 'Sprinklered throughout' provides 60+ lucrative construction reductions in these Buiding Codes for buildings that do manage to qualify for 'sprinklered throughout'. Using 'alternative suppression' strategies in lieu of sprinklers (e.g. gas- or powder based ) can trip forfeiture of all these construction reductions.
As for what is the *intention *of the term 'sprinklered throughout', as cited, there are blackout areas for the requirement of sprinklers (e.g. in NFPA 13 such as non-combustible qualifying concealed spaces, some electrical rooms, middle landings in stair shafts, or per NFPA 130, just about everywhere in massive underground assembly-area stations except concessions and storage areas). But at section A.8.1.1 in older versions of NFPA 13, is a fairly good canvas is painted for what this intention is: sprinklers in high-bay spaces up to 50 ft AFF, sprinklers inside bank vaults and inside freezers... It seems to me that A.8.1.1 is important enough that it should be graduated to the main body of enforced text as a new clause in the Scope section (1.1). Scot Deal Excelsior Risk & Fire Engineering gms: +420 606 872 129 “Human freedom is not in our ability to make decisions. It’s in our ability to put ourselves in an environment that will lead to better outcomes.” - Dan Ariely On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:23 AM David Blackwell via Sprinklerforum < [email protected]> wrote: > As Craig indicated, omitting sprinklers when there is not an exception > either in the applicable IBC code or the applicable referenced NFPA > standard will disqualify you from being considered full sprinklered > throughout the building which is needed to take certain ICC tradeoffs... > like an extra story height. > > > > *Respectfully,* > > > > *David Blackwell * > > > > *David Blackwell, P.E.* > > *Chief Engineer* > > (803)896-9833 > > > > *Office of State Fire Marshal* > > 141 Monticello Trail | Columbia, SC 29203 > > http://statefire.llr.sc.gov/ > > (803)896-9800 > > > > *"Our firefighting starts with plan review..."* > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Nick Maneen via Sprinklerforum > *Sent:* Thursday, January 30, 2020 3:34 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Nick Maneen <[email protected]>; 'Prahl, Craig/GVL' < > [email protected]>; 'Ed Kramer' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] IBC "throughout" > > > > > > **** SCDLLR NOTICE *** * > > *·** This email is from an external email address. Please use caution > when deciding whether to open any attachments or when clicking links. * > > *·** Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should not be included in > e-mail text or attachments. Do not save or transmit PII unencrypted.* > > To clarify, because I think many misunderstand this, throughout would be > in accordance with the appropriate standard. For example, it would not > require additional sprinklers in pantries in a 13R building or sprinklers > above a ceiling in a non-combustible 13 building. I have had AHJs in the > past try to start adding sprinklers where the standard allows them to be > omitted because they don’t understand. > > > > Taking the exception for alternate means of protection that Craig mentions > below may be fine with the adopted fire code and local AHJ but it is not in > compliance with the standard. > > > > *Nick Maneen, SET * > > *c* 704.791.7789 > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Prahl, > Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum > *Sent:* Thursday, January 30, 2020 3:17 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Prahl, Craig/GVL; Ed Kramer > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] IBC "throughout" > > > > When the IBC/IFC doesn’t provide a specific definition we are told (ref. > 2018 IFC) *201.4 Terms not defined. *Where terms are not defined > > through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have > ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies. *Merriam > Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition*, shall be considered as > providing ordinarily accepted meanings. > > > > Throughout means throughout. > > > > We’ve just been through this definition issue with a local architect. > Omission of sprinklers in a Control room with Sapphire provided is > acceptable as an alternative by the AHJ but the building loses all > advantages or allowances that are given to a fully sprinklered building > since taking out sprinklers and substituting a gaseous system no longer > qualifies as being sprinklered throughout. Basically any part of the code > that allows you to do something a little more risky or bigger, higher, > wider or of greater quantity or whatever based on a fully sprinklered > building or where sprinklers are installed throughout, now goes away and > you can’t do those things. > > > > The Commentary spells this out in great detail. 2018, IFC Commentary, > 903.1.1. > > > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > [email protected] | www.jacobs.com > > 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum > *Sent:* Thursday, January 30, 2020 2:38 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Ed Kramer <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] IBC "throughout" > > > > There are countless sections in the IBC that say sprinklers shall be “ . > . .installed throughout . .” or “. . .provided throughout . .” or “. > .equipped throughout . .” or something similar. But I don’t’ see where the > IBC tells me what “throughout” means. I’ve assumed it meant sprinklers in > all areas that the applicable NFPA standard (NFPA 13 in this case) requires > them, but not in areas that the applicable NFPA standard allows them to be > omitted. I’ve learned, since the IBC doesn’t define the term, there are > jurisdictions that define it differently – more specifically they don’t > recognize the omissions that NFPA 13 allows, only the exempt locations > listed in IBC section 903.3.1.1.1. > > > > Is anyone aware of an IBC document that would shed some light on this? > I’ve found a number of articles from consultants, associations, etc., but > something directly from the IBC would carry a lot more weight. > > > > Ed Kramer > > Bamford Fire Sprinkler > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any > viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by > unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message > and deleting it from your computer. > _______________________________________________ > 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
