Missing suspended ceiling tiles 2

[FFP1]

I have a customer who has removed some of the suspended ceiling tiles (20ftx20ft area) in the middle of a large room. Elementary school occupancy. Steel deck above is 10 ft higher than the mineral tile ceiling. Pendent sprinklers remain where tiles remain. Upright sprinklers installed directly above the 20x20 opening. No draft curtains and no vertical tiles or drywall above the 20x20 opening.

Obviously, the heat would draft from the lower area to the large pocket above the suspended ceiling tiles (resulting in delayed operation of all pendent sprinklers).

I have looked everywhere I can think.....Where does NFPA code specifically state this is a code violation????

Do we have a problem if one suspended ceiling tile is missing (I think the answer is yes)....how many missing suspended ceiling tiles before we have an actual code violation?

 

[skdesigner]

NFPA 25-11' 4.1.5 Changes in Occupancy, Use, Process, or Materials.

The property owner or designated representative SHALL NOT make changes in the occupancy, the use or process , or the materials used or stored in the building without evaluation of the fire protection systems for their capability to protect the new occupancy, use or materials.

25-11' 4.1.5.2 The evaluation shall consider factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:

(3) Building revisions such as relocated walls, added mezzanines, and ceilings added below sprinklers (conversely, ceilings removed where there were once sprinklers).

Per NFPA 25, I would say one tile missing would still constitute a "building revision", and therefore require action on the part of the property owner.

Your description of the occupancy makes it sound like there is more to it than just removed ceiling tiles. If there are upright sprinklers in the space above the removed tile, might it have been installed that way from the very beginning? At the very least it seems like the property owner knew it was an impairment to the sprinkler system, and had uprights installed above the hole.

If either of these scenarios are the case, I believe it falls outside the scope of NFPA 25. 25-11' 4.1.5.1. The evaluation required by 4.1.5 shall not be considered part of the normal inspection, testing and maintenance required by this standard.

 

[cdafd]

1. you could say that they are not protecting the enitire void space, as in the area of coverage is over the maximum allowed per sprinkler.

2. cannot find the section that says something like sprinklers shall be installed so as to activate properly, or words to that affect.

 

[TravisMack]

You have heads at the deck, if I understand your description. I believe that the 2010 edition states that you have to carry coverage of unprotected spaces such as you describe to 24' beyond, so you would need 68'x68' or to the walls of upright sprinklers. Technically, per older editions, that space above the ceiling is no longer a concealed space and you would need protection throughout the building.

Other than that, all should be good. I don't think the pendents are wrong. Just think of them as heads under an obstruction that is not technically required since the obstruction is not >48" in width.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[b1ueshift]

I agree with you that it will slow down the sprinklers. If you remove some ceiling tiles and there is a fire under the place where the ceiling tiles were, then the hot air will rise up past the ceiling line without setting off any ceiling level sprinklers.

The arragement you describe is similar to the heat collector plates which some designers used to use untill they were specifically disallowed.

from NFPA 13:
8.5.4.1.4* Heat collectors shall not be used as a means to assist the activation of a sprinkler.

In my opinion, a sprinkler should be within 12"(305mm) of the highest ceiling pocket or ceiling feature that it's supposed to cover, but this isn't stated explicitly anywhere in the standard, but there are some rules that imply that this is the case.

There is NFPA 13 section 8.5.7 which talks about skylights and other ceiling pockets and implies that a ceiling pocket will need it's own sprinkler if it's above 3 sq m. A large ceiling pocket apparently cannot be covered by sprinklers around the perimeter of the pocket even if the horizontal spacing complies. Unfortunately, the wording is a bit wishy washy.

Also there are the rules for pitched ceiling which require sprinklers to be located near the highest point of the ceiling.

 

[b1ueshift]

As other posters have suggested, it's possible the sprinkler system still complies due to the coverage overhead - but this isn't necessarily the case because they may be obstructed.

Why do you suppose there are sprinklers above the ceiling? Is it combustible construction?

 

[FFP1]

Class II steel deck above. They changed from pendent to upright sprinklers at the roof deck for areas where the suspended ceiling tiles were removed. I would accept this arrangement IF we had vertical walls in the opening (it would be a large ceiling pocket!).

NFPA 1 section 13.3.3.3 and NFPA 13 Section 8.15.4 are the only references I can find; however, these are just not specific enough to my situation........I was hoping someone was aware of a specific code reference for this situation. MAYBE there needs to be a section added to the Vertical Openings section of NFPA 13 to specifically address this problem.

 

[cdafd]

Yes something needs to be added to 13 or 25 about ceiling tiles being in place

The heads at the deck do not cover the entire void area, so seems like yOu could write heads to far off wall

 

[TravisMack]

How is this any different than "cloud" ceilings or any small obstruction below the sprinklers? You just have small clouds or obstructions. Provide sprinklers at the deck for the entire room and it should be good.

How would you do this if the ceiling panels were not present? Just protect it that way, then place heads below the obstructions. Again, maybe I am not understanding how this is really situated to see the issue.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[Jondoeiowa]

The walls of this room all go to the deck? Without any openings to adjoining spaces? If so what Travis said would be what I'm thinking. Cover the entire deck and treat the ACT as "Cloud Ceilings" and leave the pendents below to cover them as such.

 

[cdafd]

Travis and Jon

That is what he is seeing

He needs a nfpa section to back him up that he can show to either require added heads or put a barrier so the rest of the above ceiling area is not open

I thought it use to be in the uniform fire code that ceiling tiles had to be in place

I understand his problem because I looked a few weeks ago for something concrete to require the tiles to be there

 

[TravisMack]

In NFPA, there is nothing to require the tiles to be there. NFPA 13 says to protect all spaces. Then, there are allowances for some spaces to be left "unprotected." Based on the description, the space beyond the 20' does not seem to meet the requirement to be unprotected as it is not a concealed space.

To back up his concern:

4.1 Level of Protection. A building, where protected by an
automatic sprinkler system installation, shall be provided with
sprinklers in all areas except where specific sections of this
standard permit the omission of sprinklers.

Unless his "concealed space" meets the requirements below, then protect beyond the 20x20 space until you get to full height walls.


8.15.1.1 to 8.15.1.2.18.4 (2010 edition of NFPA 13).

There may be something about the tiles being required in the IBC or IFC, but NFPA just says to do what I listed above.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[FFP1]

Maybe the attached picture will help........the walls in this room do not reach the steel deck above the suspended ceiling tiles (creates a huge space above the tiles in all directions). The sprinklers at the steel deck are not throughout; only installed directly above where the tiles have been removed. We have the same situation in the cafeteria and in the media room.

I am simply concerned the heat will draft up from the room to the HUGE space above the suspended ceiling tile resulting in a significantly delayed response. Installing sprinklers 24 ft. beyond the edge of the opening at the steel deck level will not resolve the problem.......the mineral tiles will create a severe obstruction if the sprinklers above the tiles activate first and this action will certainly not ensure the pendent sprinklers activate during the early stages of a fire incident.

I am convinced this is a problem (sprinklers will not be as effective as they should with large portion of the tiles missing); my problem is the general contractor and architect for the project asked me to provide a specific NFPA code reference! I just wondered if it existed and maybe I could not find the correct section in NFPA 13.

Thanks for everyones comments.

 

[cdafd]

Ffp

I agree it is a problem

13 does not take into account people that do not understand fire dynamics

Been trying to find the section on placement of the head do it will activate, will keep looking

Will this project be inspected by ahj or similar ?? And if so do you think they will recognize it as a problem

The other thing is give them a piece of paper saying something like that you do not think the system will work properly and the owner is responsible. See what reaction you get from that

 

[cdafd]

http://www.compliance.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fastfacts_ceilingtiles.pdf

http://www.avondale.org/documents/C...nt/Fire Code/SRR Ceiling Tiles - 07-31-08.PDF

 

[FFP1]

Thanks cdafd!!

The combination of NFPA 1 section 13.3.3.3 and NFPA 13 Section 8.15.4 along with the fastfacts article you provided should be enough for any reasonable person to realize they have a potential problem.

 

[cdafd]

Look at 8.6.7 Nfpa 13 2010 edition

If you reverse engineer this section it kind of shows the pockets with Sidewalls, do if the Sidewalls are not there, you have a wide open area, which would need sprinklers or install the sidewalls

And if you have the handbook look at the commentary

 

[MaInspector]

I'm not sure you will be able to pin this violation in NFPA 13; but it is a building code violation to alter the ceiling tiles with out authorization from the building inspector's office. I would suggest informing the Building Department of this situation and they can require the building owner to replace the tiles.

 

[cdafd]

MAI

do you have a section reference out of the building code???

Would agree if it was a rated ceiling with rated tiles

But most drop in ceilings are not rated

 

[FFP1]

It is really not a ceiling pocket because there are no vertical barriers to define the pocket.

Also, NFPA 13 states the following regarding ceiling pockets: The total size of all unprotected ceiling pockets in the same compartment within 10 ft (3 m) of each other does not exceed 1000 ft3 (28.3 m3). The space above these rooms easily exceeds 1,000 cubic feet of volume!