Mixed Use - Residential Sprinkler Requirement in Business Occupancy

[waterppk]

I'm working on a mixed use building for a non-profit organization. We're looking to install a caretaker's quarters for a building manager and trying to navigate code. The building is 2 stories, 9600 sq ft per floor plate, 600 sq ft on the 2nd floor will be the caretaker's space (residential), the rest of the building is IIIB construction with business occupancy.

The code question I'm trying to figure out:
Is it possible to provide a NFPA 13D sprinkler system for just the caretaker's quarters without sprinkling the entire building?

What I've found for documentation:
***
IBC section 903.2.8 Group R Section 903.3, requires a sprinkler throughout the building

but what's confusing
2015 IBC Table 508.4:
B, F-1, M, and S-1 needs a 2 hour separation from R when non-sprinkled, 1 hour with sprinklers
***

Why does table 508.4 provide a sprinkled and non-sprinkled separation if 903.2.8 requires sprinklers throughout? What would be the instance when 508.4 would have a non-sprinkled B, F-1, M, or S-1 occupancy adjacent to a R occupancy?

Thank you for any clarification you can offer! We'll likely sprinkle the whole structure, but I'd still like to understand how the code is meant to be used/interpreted.

 

[UFT12]

the "NS" indication below table 508.4 refers to NFPA 13 systems, not any other. Therefore, "NS" could potentially mean NFPA 13R, 13D, FM DS or just no sprinklers.

 

[cdafd]

cannot be 13D

Build a separate sleeping building?

 

[waterppk]

Thanks for the replies.

UFT12: this makes a lot more sense, I was interpreting it in the literal sense (sprinklers or no sprinklers) but understanding there's delineations between systems is helpful

cdafd: We're landlocked on the site and have already built the building/layout. This is an incremental construction project for better or for worse so we're addressing things as they come up. I don't know how separation works within a structure but we could fire separate and structurally protect the caretaker's quarters (which have to do either way to separate the occupancy types by IBC).

 

[cdafd]

There is a far knowledgeable person here, that posts,

I may be wrong but the separation is required to divide occupancy types

For R, does not negate fire sprinklers through out.

 

[stookeyfpe]

In the future it would be very beneficial to indicated the edition of the Building Code you are referencing. From your question, I know you're seeking guidance about the 2018 IBC.

In your case Table 508.4 is indicating by the abbreviation "NS" that the building is not required to be equipped throughout the building in accordance with IBC Section 903.3.1.1. This means a NFPA 13 automatic sprinkler system isn't required throughout the building. To perform this analysis correctly, you also need to review IBC Table 504.4 for the number Allowable Stories Above Grade Plane and IBC Table 506.2 for Allowable Building Area.

In all cases, the care taker's dwelling sleeping unit requires automatic sprinkler protection. In your particular scenario Footnote H of IBC Table 506.2 and IBC Table 504.4 allow the dwelling/sleeping unit to be protected in accordance with NFPA 13D automatic sprinkler system.

 

[cdafd]

What stookey said!!!

Interesting footnote