It is for 4 story residential building.
Porte cochere is at front and it is detached about 2 feet from the building.
Costumer is asking from us to prove to him (code section) that sprinklers are not required there.
Forget for a minute the porte-cochere isn't attached.
If the building is protected with a system installed per NFPA® 13R, "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential Occupancies" 2013 Edition
6.6.5* Except as provided for in 6.6.5.1, sprinklers shall not be required in any porches, balconies, corridors, carports, porte cocheres, and stairs that are open and attached.
The term porte-cochere has been added to the list of exterior areas that do not require sprinkler protection. The word is synonymous with carport, but many authorities were not allowing omission of sprinklers because porte-cocheres were not specifically listed in 6.6.5. There is no requirement to protect porte-cocheres, even if there is occupiable building space above. The word “open,” used in 6.6.5, has been a point of contention since the earliest (1989) edition of NFPA 13R. Beginning in the 2010 edition, the committee clarified that if one of these spaces was to be considered open, it was “exposed” to the outside temperature. This differs from requirements in the building codes, fire codes, and NFPA 13. NFPA 13 is very clear that a corridor must be 50 percent open to be considered “open” and remain unprotected. However NFPA 13 is a property protection standard and does not apply in NFPA 13R installations. The model building and fire codes have varying definitions of what they consider to be open. For the 2013 edition, the Technical Committee on Residential Sprinkler Systems has made it very clear that any corridor, stair, breezeway, porch, balcony, carport, or like structure that allows the temperature of the outside atmosphere to permeate into that space is considered “open.” The committee has added Figure A.6.6.5(a) through Figure A.6.6.5(e) to explicitly clarify what constitutes an open corridor or breezeway. Even though the corridor or breezeway might bisect the buildings in multiple directions, sprinklers are not required.
6.6.5.1 Where a roof or deck is provided above, sprinklers shall be installed to protect attached exterior balconies, attached exterior decks, and ground floor patios serving dwelling units in buildings of Construction Type V.
I really doubt it is possible to have a four story building of Construction Type V so 6.6.5.1 wouldn't come in to play.
As to NFPA® 13, "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems" 2013 Edition
8.15.7.1 Unless the requirements of 8.15.7.2, 8.15.7.3, or 8.15.7.4 are met, sprinklers shall be installed under exterior projections exceeding 4 ft (1.2 m) in width.
A.8.15.7.2 Vehicles that are temporarily parked are not considered storage. Areas located at drive-in bank windows or porte-cocheres at hotels and motels normally do not require sprinklers where there is no occupancy above, where the area is entirely constructed of noncombustible or limited-combustible materials or fire retardant–treated lumber, and where the area is not the only means of egress. However, areas under exterior ceilings where the building is sprinklered should be protected due to the occupancy above.
8.15.7.3 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from below the exterior projections of combustible construction, provided the exposed finish material on the exterior projections are noncombustible, limited-combustible, or fire retardant–treated wood as defined in NFPA 703, and the exterior projections contain only sprinklered concealed spaces or any of the following unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces:
(1) Combustible concealed spaces filled entirely with noncombustible insulation
(2) Light or ordinary hazard occupancies where noncombustible or limited-combustible ceilings are directly attached to the bottom of solid wood joists so as to create enclosed joist spaces 160 ft3 (4.5 m3) or less in volume, including space below insulation that is laid directly on top or within the ceiling joists in an otherwise sprinklered attic [see 11.2.3.1.4(4)(d)]
(3) Concealed spaces over isolated small exterior projections not exceeding 55 ft2 (5.1 m2) in area
Sprinklers may be omitted from a combustible roof, canopy, or porte-cochere where the exterior surfaces are of noncombustible, limited-combustible, or fire-retardant materials; where the roof, canopy, or porte-cochere contains only combustible concealed spaces that are completely filled with noncombustible insulation; where the concealed space is formed when the noncombustible surface is directly attached to joists so as to create spaces of 160 ft3 (4.5 m3) or less in volume; or where the area is less than 55 ft2 (5.2 m2). All of these conditions do not require sprinklers per 8.15.1.2.
Most of these I've encountered I was able to avoid sprinklers because the exterior surfaces were noncombustible, limited-combustible or fire-retardant materials. It's a whole lot cheaper just to have the insulation company blow $50 worth of insulation into the space.
TravisMack (Mechanical)
4 Aug 16 20:02
I'm working on 3 different apartment complexes that are Type V-a, four stories. I guess out west, it is much more common
That's meat and potatoes in my jurisdiction. The sad part is 40% of the contractors can't/won't make the design comply with NFPA 13R on the 1st review. I don't know if it's the lack of experience, laziness, or they find that some jurisdictions couldn't give a rat's ass about the design of the system other than the location of the FDC so they assume we won't perform a thorough review. In about 10% of the submittals, the architect specifies a NFPA 13R system and takes a 300% area increase thinking we won't notice.
For me whether 13 or 13R is 100% must be the call of the building professional responsible for the project which, in Georgia anyway, is the registered architect or licensed professional engineer for the project. If it isn't called, and in writing, my personal policy will always be to assume it to be NFPA 13 and that is the end of that story.
I need to go over it again but just last month the NFSA issued a TechNote that went over some of the new requirements for mixed occupancies and I got a feeling it could get real ugly really fast.
But back to the original question if the structure is not attached is it considered a separate building? I would think if it was a separate building, with the size that it is, sprinklers would not be required for any construction type.
If the canopy is free standing, it's not considered as a fire area (see the IBC definition) and would not require sprinklers - UNLESS - the canopy is protecting certain classes of hazardous materials. Also, many people do not understand that a free-standing canopy is an occupancy in the IBC (Group U) and it has area limits that, when exceeded, can require sprinkler protection.
