NFPA 13R and sprinklers in attics under IBC. 2

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Question about International Building Code (Georgia in particular)

NFPA 13R "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height" 2002 Edition Section 6.8.5 has to do with sprinklers in attics of apartment buildings and motels.

"Sprinklers shall not be required in attics[/b], penthouse equipment rooms, elevator machine rooms, concealed spaces dedicated exclusively to and containing only dwelling unit ventilation equipment, crawl spaces, floor/ceiling spaces, elevator shafts, and other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes or storage and do not contain fuel-fired equipment."

But regardless of what NFPA 13R allows doesn't the building code require sprinklers in combustible attics unless the walls around the dwelling units extend to the attic roof deck? The way I read it the IBC requires sprinklers in these attics unless they are compartmented into spaces not exceeding the area of two dwelling units or 3,000 sq. ft. whichever is less.

If this is right these walls have to be what? 30 minutes?

 

[cdafd]

can you supply a code section and which edition you are looking at

 

[TravisMack]

SD2:

I am going off of memory, but I do believe that you are correct. Stookey is the resident I-Codes expert, so he can confirm. If the attics aren't draftstopped to relatively small compartments, then you must sprinkle the attic. I don't recall the walls requiring any special rating in the attic. I believe you can just attach a sheet of drywall to one side of a truss to get the compartments you need.

Again, all of this is from memory and I haven't look it up in the IBC yet. However, it used to be in BOCA and we got caught on it many years ago on a project.

 

[TravisMack]

SD2:

I am going off of memory, but I do believe that you are correct. Stookey is the resident I-Codes expert, so he can confirm. If the attics aren't draftstopped to relatively small compartments, then you must sprinkle the attic. I don't recall the walls requiring any special rating in the attic. I believe you can just attach a sheet of drywall to one side of a truss to get the compartments you need.

Again, all of this is from memory and I haven't look it up in the IBC yet. However, it used to be in BOCA and we got caught on it many years ago on a project.

 

[cdafd]

I think you are reading the code backwards if you are looking at 717.4 You are not required draft stops if the building is sprinkled,

not you are required sprinklers if you do not draft stop.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

TravisMack "it used to be in BOCA and we got caught on it many years ago on a project."

Indeed it was I remember it from well from my Ohio days and, if I am reading it right, BOCA was a little more stringent in that partition walls had to extend to the underside of the roof deck for every dwelling/sleeping unit. With IBC it appears every two units or 3,000 sq. ft. whichever is less.

How come when I finally start getting a code down they up and change on me?

cdafd "I think you are reading the code backwards if you are looking at 717.4 You are not required draft stops if the building is sprinkled"

Yeah, I probably am.

I don't want to sprinkler this attic everything is wrong. On top of three floors, 6 in 12 pitch, 30' from third floor to roof peak, offsets, hips, monument to the Amazon rain forest and a poor public water supply and a dry system to boot.

I got about a 60 psi static, 45 residual at 900 gpm at the street, double detector check, about 300' of 6" underground to contend with and on top of all this my highest sprinkler looks like it is going to be around 50' in elevation. I'll have more money in the attic sprinklers then I will in the rest of the three floors and riser combined.

Looking at it I am not so sure the central attic sprinklers will work.

I am telling the owner to just drywall it.

Stookey? Help me out here.

 

[cdafd]

so what section of the building code are you pulling the requirement from???

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

cdafd "so what section of the building code are you pulling the requirement from???"

Section 708.4 "Continuity".

"Fire partiitons shall extend from the top of the floor assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof slab or deck above or to the fire-resistance-rated floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assembly above, and shall be securely attached thereto. If the partitions are not continuous to the deck, and where constructed of combustible construction, the space between the ceiling and the deck above shall be fireblocked or draftstopped in accordanc with Sections 717.2.1 and 717.3.1 at the partition line. The supporting construction shall be protected to afford the required fire-resistance rating of the wall supported, except for tenant and sleeping unit separation walls and exit access corridor walls in buildings of Type IIB, IIIB and VB construction."

Exception #5 and #6.

"5. Fireblocking or draftstopping is not required at the partition line in Group R-2 buidings that do not exceed four stories in height provided the attic space is subdivided by draftstopping into areas not exceeding 3,000 sq. ft. or above every two dwelling units, whichever is smaller.

6. Fire blocking is not required at the partion lines in buildings equipped with an automatic sprinkler system installed throughout in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 provided that automatic sprinklers are installed in the combustible floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling spaces."

The way I read this is if the attic space is subdivided into 3,000 sq. ft. areas or every two dwelling units (this is a hotel with each sleeping unit measuring about 25'x12'), then sprinklers in the attic space are not required.

Sprinklers would be required if not subdivided even though NFPA #13R doesn't require sprinklers in a combustible attic space.

A number of sprinkler contractor's are not aware of this/don't care and are willing to hang their hat on NFPA #13R but someday, when they are caught, they are going to be in a very bad situation.

 

[cdafd]

SprinklerDesigner2


the sections stated do not make sprinklers required.

The sections deal with draft stops and if THEY are required or not depending on if the building is sprinkled.
They make the building designer decide either to put draft stops in the attic or sprinkle it, or if for some reason the building is sprinkled for some other reason it gives an exception.

 

[stookeyfpe]

The IBC, in residential multi-family occupancies less than 4 stories in height, does not require sprinklers in the attic. Sprinklerdesigner 2 (where's number 1?) issue is clearly addressed in the IBC. CDAFD (another smart Texan) is correct - the provision only applies to draft stopping, not attic sprinklers.

The IBC correctly respects the efficacy of the performance of NFPA 13R sprinklers in a multi-family dwelling. It gives the appropriate credits because of the reliability of properly installed automatic sprinkler protection in this occupancy.

Sorry for the delay boys. I have been working on a Hazardous occupancy in Round Rock, Texas and I got the code officials to understand what we are trying to accomplish.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Thanks Stookey.

I am new to the area (state) and just started my review of the IBC.

 

[stookeyfpe]

SD2

Just be sure that GA has not amended this section. I know most of the code officials in the larger jurisdictions in GA. They respect the IBC but they also know the loopholes. They can (and have the authority to) amend their state code to be more respective.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

"the sections stated do not make sprinklers required."

I don't like being thrust into the arena of interpreting building codes it's something I am not trained in. I feel more comfortable when I can just be the sprinkler guy leaving building code interpretation up to architects and engineers.

But don't those sections make sprinklers required in a roundabout way? From what I've read if the draftstopping isn't there, if the attic space isn't "subdivided by draftstopping into areas not exceeding 3,000 sq. ft. or above every two dwelling units, whichever is smaller." then the attic would have to have sprinklers. Right?

 

[stookeyfpe]

SD2:

Nope. Be sure to read the scope of each chapter. Section 701.1 of the 2003 IBC (the currently adopted GA building code) states:

The provisions of this chapter shall govern the materials and assemblies used for structural fire resistance and fire-resistance-rated construction separation of adjacent spaces to safeguard against the spread of fire and smoke within a building and the spread of fire to or from buildings.

This chapter speaks to materials used as a design for passive fire resistive materials. These materials, methods and systems are not active (detect; detect and discharge an agent) but instead are designed to (and if properly constructed) will provide a physical barrier to prevent the spread of fire and its combustion products from one area of a building to another.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

"Nope. Be sure to read the scope of each chapter. Section 701.1 of the 2003 IBC...."

Duh, finally got it.

Thanks!

 

[stookeyfpe]

Christmas at ICC. Code users are reading the book.

SD2 you make me happy. I truly enjoy when our users and design professionals read the code.

Happy holidays. Stay safe brother....

 

[JoeWill123]

Stookey,

Have you run acorss anyone relaly enforcing the newest NFPA 101 in new housing construction with sprinklers? That they must have suppression installed in new residential homes. 2006, NFPA LSC 101, 24.3.5.1

 

[stookeyfpe]

JoeWill

You should start a new thread. Cobb County GA and Anne Arundel County MA have some of the most aggressive residential sprinkler requirements in the US.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Excuse me but I feel like beating this dead horse one more time.

Under the IBC can anyone come up with a condition where sprinklers would be required in a combustible attic space of a two story 80 unit motel that is sprinkled per NFPA #13R?

Strange story, the architect and owner are having a cat fight over fees, or non-payment of fees, so the architect is refusing to answer phone calls but in the meantime construction goes on.

At an earlier meeting where the architect was present, he made the statement sprinklers were required in the attic space but wouldn't elaborate.

No skin off my nose the sprinklers are in and we got paid for doing it but the reason the architect is saying sprinklers were required is driving me nuts.

 

[cdafd]

1. if there is a local admendment requireing attic sprinklers
2. if the owner or arch specified attic sprinklers
3. If it is a NFPA 13 system and not an "R"
4. If some read the IBC wrong