NFPA 13R Bathrooms

[Dormer1975]

I wanted to share a recent experience I had and get commentary. In the past few months I worked on an NFPA 13R project for a 7-building 3-story each apartment complex. Each unit had a bathroom that was less than 55 ft^2, and thus, according to the 2007 edition of NFPA 13R, not required to be sprinklered (NFPA 13R 6.9.2).

So, the project goes on, and the time comes that the GC wants to get his framing inspection done. To get that done we have to be finished with our install except for drops, along with other subs. So, we have the AHJ come out and do a cover inspection and she notices that the walls behind the bathtubs aren't sheet rocked, they're just fixed to the frame. So, she quotes the 2002 Edition of NFPA 13R (6.8.2) that states that a condition to the 55 ft^2 rule is the walls and ceilings, including behind fixtures, are of noncombustible or limited-combustible materials providing a 15-minute thermal barrier.

So, we explain that we design to the latest edition of NFPA, but the AHJ's argument is they approve based on the 2006 edition of the IBC, which only recognizes the 2002 NFPA 13R. We contact AFSA, who provide their own informal interpretation recommending the AHJ accept the 2007 NFPA 13R code. The AHJ doesn't budge and we added roughly 150 sprinkler heads to the project. I can't fault the AHJ for enforcing the 2002 NFPA 13R code, but I didn't even think it'd be a question.

As far as I understand, the 2009 edition of the IBC should be coming out next month, in which the AFSA indicated to us, it adopts the 2007 NFPA 13R with no amendments. Granted, the state has 18 months to accept the latest edition of the IBC.

So, this whole experience makes me ask the question, "Should I be designing to the 2007 edition or 2002 until my state adopts the 2007?"

 

[LCREP]

2002 for the local AHJ to stop that pain on your forehead and the 2007 for any insurance company that MAY be involved! Are u having fun yet??

****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too!

 

[cdafd]

ahj should have caught the 2007 reference if it was on the plans submitted.

Suggest set down before designing with the ahj if you have never delt with a particular ahj and see what thier mood is.

Could have gone through the appeals process as alternative design.

On the ahj side if they approve it with out documentation and something goes wrong they will be live at 5, something I would not want to be.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Sorry, but you should have followed the adopted edition of NFPA 13R. The problem I've always had when designers wanted to use the latest version of some NFPA standard versus the adopted edition was:

1) You want to use it now, which means I will probably be using a standard that neither my staff or myself are not familiar with. For example, I thought I had a clear understanding of the high piled storage requirements in the 2002 edition of NFPA 13. Now, in the infinite wisdom of the NFPA 13 technical committee, they completely reorganized these requirements into 6 separate chapters. Yippee, more hours at the desk trying to figure out what exactly changed.

2) You want to use the standard because it solves your particular problem for your particular project.

The IFC and IBC offers you the option of preparing an Alternative Means and Method to allow the use of the lastest version of a standard (or a different standard) for this project. You didn't and the inspector required you to comply with the code. Decisions on the edition of the standard that will be used as the basis for design need to be decided at the commencement of the project with the concurrent approval of the AHJ.

As a former code official, I call your design cherry-picking. Many designers love to pick a provision from a particular edition of a new standard and make it apply to their design. You didn't and I appreciate that. However, jurisdictions adopt standards as the minimum basis for design and must be applied in their totality.

I applaud the inspector for doing his/her job. I would have done the same thing if the project was in my jurisdiction.

Remember, Chapter 1 of every code and standard says its requirements are the minimum. They also allow the designer the option to use any technology to satisfy the code's intent, so long as the technology is equivalent in safety. That includes the edition of the standard used as the basis for design. But for this to occur, you must obtain the approval of the jurisdiction.

 

[TravisMack]

I always try to use the most conservative of the current and adopted standard. For example, a project I remember we did in 2003 was in a city that was only accepting 1991 NFPA 13. Well, this was a dormitory. Because the 2002 edition said all light hazard has to be QR sprinklers, we put in QR heads, but could not take a QR reduction because the 1991 edition of 13 did not recognize. It cost a few extra bucks per head, but we felt it was the right thing to do.

In your case, it is always easy to look back and see what to do. I think it would be prudent to bring it up to the local AHJ at time of bid or design to get it clarified. However, as with most things in life, we learn more from our mistakes than anything else

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

 

[interlogicapanama]

It is always important to state the edition of whatever Code is being referred to. With 25 years experience in Fire Protection Engineering when dealing with the AHJ and several codes at the same time, the AHJ should be asked in the event of a conflict what he or she feels is (if any)is the superior document. They have a right to enforce and you have perfect right to question. Remember they work for you and not vice versa. For example ASTM 17 Standard for elevators worked very closely with NFPA to come up with non conflicting standards. Experience from a Fire Department Captain Arson Investigator when dealing with similar NFPA 13R issues in my own home who questioned the building inspectors interpretation with a comment of "you think we the Fire Department read from the wrong book when it comes to fire protection? End of that story. Another case in point the local Water Company and Building Inspector demanded a separate fire and domestic water feed for my NFPA 13R. It makes no engineering sense whatever and eventually after telling them so they admitted that the reason was if I didn't pay my water bill and water was shut off they would not be liable for the consequences of a fire because the sprinkler system didn't work. What's this Wag the dog!! Stand up to these people with plain engineering common sense and they back down every time

 

[byrnesf]

interlogicapanama(mechanical)
I have to agree with you that separating domestic from fire sprinkler makes no sense from an engineering standpoint. However, if the local water purveyer were to shut off the combination supply and a fire were to ocurr, not only would the purveyor be live at five, but I could forsee civil and possibly criminal liability. My jurisdiction does not allow combination services for that very reason.