Exterior projection 8.15.7 2016

[cdafd]

So what "separation" have you seen allowed as not to require fire sprinkler protection?

If you have a canopy or similar, what separation from the building have you seen approved, so as not to require fire sprinkler protection??


One, two, three feet or what?


As a designer what would you require?

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

As a designer I require nothing but to follow the standards and codes.

9.2.1.19.1 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from within combustible soffits, eaves, overhangs, and decorative frame elements that are constructed in accordance with 9.2.1.19.2 through 9.2.1.19.5.

9.2.1.19.2 Combustible soffits, eaves, overhangs, and decorative frame elements shall not exceed 4 ft 0 in. (1.2 m) in width.

As long as the overhang does not exceed 4'-0" and there isn't any storage under it.

But read the standard because there are a few other requirements as well.

 

[cdafd]

SD2

Thank you

I agree follow 13 and sprinkle if required per 13.

If the question is asked of you, if I do not attach this to the building, how much separation would you like to see

Six inches, one foot, three feet or?

 

[UFT12]

I am not even sure 8.15.7 is applicable to your situation. You are referring to structures separated from the rest of the building while 8.15.7 addresses exterior projections that are attached to the building. I don't think this is your case. It is not possible to get a direct answer without knowing what is this structure intended for. Surely it makes a great deal of a difference when you have some sporadic & temporary low combustibility storage as opposed to an LPG tank. Also, is it going to be a combustible or non- structure? Maybe the answer you re looking for lies within the specific application standard for the intended use. In addition, since this structure looks like self-standing, if you think you can classify it as a building you may want to look in the building code for the minimum fire separation distances.

 

[cdafd]

UFT12,

The question is a backwards question

If you are presented with drawings showing a combustible walk canopy connected to the building, and it is over four feet,,,,

If asked and they were willing to take out a section so it is not directly connected to the building,, how big of gap would you be comfortable with??

one inch, one foot, three feet or other gap?? to basically call in "separated"


For example this picture, the canopy is attached to the building and is combustible:::

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...5533db23d4310d14bcad4c.jpg&imgrefurl=https://

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/157766...pAhV6HDQIHVSlAxYQxiAoAHoECAEQEw&iact=c&ictx=1

What separation would you be comfortable with?

 

[cdafd]

A real good example :::

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/bf/ae/f6bfae875cae273058a1bfc06a3b37d5.jpg

If the owner does not want to sprinkle it and is willing to provide a gap/ separation at the building,,

How much of a gap/separation are you good with, so as not to require fire sprinkler coverage.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/bf/ae/f6bfae875cae273058a1bfc06a3b37d5.jpg

 

[cdafd]

UFT12

Kind of like if they ask the question, if I do not want to sprinkle this::

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/bf/ae/f6bfae875cae273058a1bfc06a3b37d5.jpg

What is one option,,

Answer make it totally out of steel

 

[stookeyfpe]

I'm having a hard time understanding why this canopy needs automatic sprinkler protection. It's an exterior canopy. Your answer will be found in the Building Code because that's what establishes what constitutes a canopy and a minimum separation distance, if one is even required.

My approach is to ask what is the loss history for an exterior canopy that's completely open. I'm going to speculate it's pretty darn low.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

The only time I ever had to provide sprinkler protection under an eave was a high end horse barn where they stacked bales of hay under the eaves.

 

[cdafd]

Scott and SD2

I understand your answers,

Will look at IBC

But if complying with 13,

How do you get past Exterior projection 8.15.7 2016

If

1. Attached to the building

2. Over four feet

3. Made out of wood that will burn

 

[UFT12]

I concur with Stookeyfpe. Since you are trying to avoid falling on the NFPA 13 8.15.7 requirements by having a detached/separate structure, you need to see where you are falling on the building code. The way I see it, the type of this structure can be classified per IBC or NFPA 220 even if we are talking for a detached porte cochere or a breezeway. Table 602 of IBC for example has minimum separation distances in accordance with types of construction and ratings. But that concerns the structure itself against other and vice versa. From the other hand, if there are fixed combustibles under it or appear continuously, then sprinklers should be required regardless, especially if they are part of a means of egress or near. Although it concerns attached structures, 8.15.7.5 of NFPA 13 talks for a similar situation about the necessity (or not) of sprinklers. Observe the way this paragraph is written. It seems it applies regardless of the type of construction.

 

[cdafd]

UFT

More than likely no storage

But I would say part of the exit

8.15.7.4 is more of what they have for this particular project,,,,

Trouble is made of wood and attached, at the main entry door, to the building structure.

Will look at IBC 602