Chicago Fire Code

[jcraig12]

All, had a sprinkler contractor tell me that he designed a sprinkler system per the 'Chicago Fire Code'. The protected warehouse, had multiple row racks, 16-ft. deep with storage of Class I and III commodities to a height of 30-ft. with a ceiling height of 40-ft. Ceiling protection only with a design density of 0.25/2500. This protection per the NFPA 13 standard is not sufficient. this system should have been an ESFR system. Why would a fire protection contractor knowingly install a system that is not designed correctly to the current standard of NFPA 13? This is unethical, unprofessional and morally wrong. I could not sleep at night if I knew I designed a system that would not properly protect a building. I did look up the 'Chicago Fire Code' and there is language that was apparently used in the 1970's or earlier that I have never seen. The Chicago Code indicates that freight warehouses with 14-ft. high storage be protected by a MINIMUM design of 0.25/2500. Wouldn't the designer know this is a minimum and not the proper design? I think this is unbelievable. My question is this, what recourse does the building owner have? I would think the building owner could sue the general contractor and the sprinkler contractor but how likely would it be to win a lawsuit in these type of cases? Thanks in advance, JC

 

[acb324]

The fire protection section of the Chicago Building Code is less than 30 pages and includes sprinkler, extinguishers, standpipes, and fire alarms. It does not make a specific reference to NFPA 13 as the adopted standard in the same manner that IBC and IFC do. If you ask any sprinkler contractor in the city, as well as some city officials, they will tell you the standard is NFPA 13 1994 ed. In Chapter 18-36 Reference Standards it lists NFPA 13 1999 ed. They call for pure glycerin solution ONLY in antifreeze systems, which we know per the 2010 TIA should be a premixed solution not exceeding 48% glycerin by volume. It is poorly written and ancient. Sorry for the rant, but I share in your frustration!

As for your question, I am not too familiar with the liability side of this, but I can tell you that I have read the fire protection section forward and backward and it never specifically calls out NFPA 13 as the adopted standard to follow. In fact, the reference occurs three times only in regard to specific items such as tank installation, fittings, and hydraulic calcs for pipe sizing. Chapter 18-36 that I referenced above states that "This chapter lists the edition date and full title of standards that are referenced in other sections of the building code." From that I gather that these are just documents that are referenced in specific situations, and not that the CBC adopts them in full. I think it would be hard to make a case against anyone based on that, even though they certainly know better!

 

[jcraig12]

Thanks for the reply, spoke to a lawyer friend and would depend on the contract to see if there is a case. Certainly the designer knew better but there is not much the bldg owner can do at this point. Thanks again