NFPA 13 - Display Cases

[ChrisConley]

In a school that is sprinklered, are sprinklers in the trophy cases / display cases required?

We are working on a major renovation to an existing school. The school currently has a number of recessed and semi-recessed display cases. Due to the construction (concrete lintel above the cases) we would be required to run sprinklers lines exposed along the surface of the existing wall to serve a sprinkler in these cases.

Are these sprinklers even required? Wardrobes and closets are exempt in certain applications, we don't sprinkler the lockers, which are filled with combustible papers... why trophy cases?

 

[stookeyfpe]

Good question.

Answer: Nothing in NFPA 13 requires you to install sprinklers in trophy cases (unless they have the area and height of a room).

 

[ChrisConley]

Our AHJ calls up the cases as concealed combustible construction, and therefore requiring a sprinkler. We have been conforming, but would like to challenge on this particular case.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Apparently the AHJ has not read the definition of obstructed construction. NFPA 13, 2002 ed., section 3.7.1 defines obstructed construction as

Panel construction and other construction where beams, trusses, or other members impede heat flow or water distribution in a manner that materially affects the ability of sprinklers to control or suppress a fire.

I'm having a difficult type visualizing how wooden cases with wood shelves are going to affect the ability of sprinklers to control the fire.

Or is the AHJ stating that sprinklers are required because it the trophy cases are more than 4 feet in width and cause an obstruction? See NFPA 13, section 8.6.5.3.3

 

[rhenson]

If the trophy cases are recessed in the wall or are exposed, they are nothing more than architectural detail. Assuming they don't occupy more than the allowed percentages of wall space per your locally adopted codes and assuming the densities and other design criteria have been met according to NFPA 13 I see no special criteria for a trophy case.
Remember the basic, "put the wet stuff on the red stuff". If there is a fire in the area of the trophy cases what is the likelyhood of the case contributing to the flame spread and smoke development with a properly installed and maintained NFPA 13 system.
All AHJ's(engineers and architects included)need to remember that every situation is not covered by the text. Life safety is the main objective.

 

[cdafd]

They are considered a piece of furniture. You do not sprinkle dressers, stand up clothes closets, entertainment centers, etc

 

[ChrisConley]

Thanks for the opinions all.

The cabinets that are being specifically targeted are recessed and semi-recessed ~12" deep. I'm glad the concensus seems to be these items don't require a dedicated sprinkler, now I just need to convince the AHJ.

Thanks for the 'put the wet stuff on the red stuff', I may use that expression with your permission when stating my case.

 

[sprinklerdesigner]

Seems the less the AHJ's know the more dictatorial they become.

It's obvious it is not the intent of NFPA 13 to require sprinklers in these 12" depth display cases anymore then it is the intent to require sprinklers in the dish cupboards of the school cafeteria.

 

[fprev]

New member here, and let me start (on the wrong foot!) by saying I take exception to sprinklerdesigner's comment, but I digress...

I seem to have a similar situation to ChrisConley's, although it is in a public library being renovated. The area of concern is in display cases recessed into the walls in the 1910-vintage section of the building. Previously open, these plaster display cases are now to be enclosed by glass. With the question of sprinklering I felt there was no problem, just display cases, right?

The sprinkler contractor showed on his working drawings the provision to add a head into each display case. A trustee of the library feared the plaster domes in the cases would be ruined by the drilling. Fair enough, we've sprinklers immediately outside each case, no problem.

Uh, well...they ARE drilling the domes of the cases to add lighting...or as I view it...an ignition source into each case.

OK, so don't put glass doors on, they never were there before. I guess these are a remnant of a kinder, gentler time so glass doors are needed for security. OK, place the lighting outside the cases...no, don't want to do that, then they would have to pay for special glass.

So, you can see my fistfight, which was brought to me by the clerk-of-the-works. I finally asked, what does the engineer-of-record say? Well, we seem to have an absentee architect and a missing-in-action FPE.

Can anyone direct me to a section of the Code that might be useful for me to make a rational decision on this issue?
As previous, these are alcoves built into the building, not pieces of furniture added.

Thanks for your re-examination of this discussion.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Hi Chris,

I guess I am the resident bad boy.

The just released 2007 edition of NFPA #13 has this to say about trophy cases.

Section 8.1.1(7)"Furniture, such as portable wardrobe units, cabinets, trophy cases and similar features not intended for occupancy, do not require sprinklers to be installed in them. This type of feature shall be permitted to be attached to the finished struture. This change is tied to a change in section 8.5.3.2.3 that requires the distance from the wall to the sprinkler to be measured to the wall behind furniture, such as: wardrobes, cabinets, and trophy cases."

I hope this helps.

 

[fprev]

Here in Massachusetts we must work under the 2002 ed. of the Code. I have seen that bit in the new edition, but its not in the 2002, plus it really does not apply as the display areas I speak of are recessed into the walls of the structure and not a piece of furniture added. Depth? I honestly can't say at this juncture; I do have some digital photos of an example, can those be posted somewhow here?

Without glass doors AND electric lighting, I do not feel this would even be an issue. I guess I am asking, IS this an issue as I have described above?

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

"Without glass doors AND electric lighting, I do not feel this would even be an issue. I guess I am asking, IS this an issue as I have described above?"

I don't think it would be an issue but then you are in Massachusetts.

You can always try to use the equivalency clause which is in the 2002 edition.

1.5 Equivalency.
Nothing in this standard is intended to prevent the use of systems, methods, or devices of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by this standard. Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency. The system, method, or device shall be approved for the intended purpose by the authority having jurisdiction.

Might work, might not but worth a try I suppose.

What needs to be asked is does the 2007 edition afford less of a degree of protection then the 2002 edition? While the 2002 version is currently adopted by statute at some point the 2007 edition will eventually be adopted so why would anyone oppose it being used now?

My wife has a huge china hutch that extends almost the ceiling with glass doors and a couple overhead lights built in that display the china we never use. Being made entirely of wood I suppose a fire could get started but if there wer located in a sprinkled building I find it hard to believe someone would require it be sprinkled.

If you want to post photo's I would suggest using image shack

http://imageshack.us/

and post the url here.