Regards NFPA #13R - At what point does a "breeze Way" become enclosed?

[SprinklerDesigner2]

In regards to NFPA #13R

6.8.4 Sprinklers shall not be required in any porches, balconies, corridors, and stairs that are open and attached.

Here is a plan view

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/3384/breeze1ml0.jpg

And section from one end

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5629/breeze2rk4.jpg

My gut feeling is sprinklers would be required because I don't think it meets the definition of "stairs that are open" but maybe not if the IBC offers a defintion of exactly what is open and what is not.

It's in Georgia so has anyone ran into this?

Thank you.

 

[TravisMack]

SD2:

I have done a few apt projects in GA, similar to the one you are doing. I have always put dry sidewalls in that corridor. I have always viewed the open and attached to mean something like the exterior walkway at a motel, basically, open on 3 sides.

Going from memory, I think that some parking structures don't require sprinklers if they are more than 50% open. So, you may also consider that as a general rule of thumb for applying a concept of "open."

 

[stookeyfpe]

SD2

I wouldn't require it. But then again, I have always been known as somewhat liberal code official given the loss history in sprinklered Group R-2 occupancies.

Travis mentioned the use of lnaguage from the 2006 International Building Code requirements for Open Parking Garages. The following requirement may be of interest in your discussion with the fire code official:

For natural ventilation purposes, the exterior side of the structure shall have uniformly distributed openings on two or more sides. The area of such openings in exterior walls on a tier must be at least 20 percent of the total perimeter wall area of each tier. The aggregate length of the openings considered to be providing natural ventilation shall constitute a minimum of 40 percent of the perimeter of the tier. Interior walls shall be at least 20 percent open with uniformly distributed openings.

So long as the Open Parking Garage meets the IBC construction requirements, such a building does not require automatic sprinkler protection regardless of height or area.

 

[twd22285]

Hi sd 2,
Just designed a fire sprinkler system for an apartment with the same issue. I ended up putting dhsw's in there just in case a fire started in the breeze way it wouldn't spread into the dwelling units untill the fire was contained by the system. could never get a concrete answer on it. We don't have much competition so price wasn't an issue. that gives us the luxury of "playing it safe" in a situation such as this.

 

[Canook]

The International Fire Code 903.3.1.2.1 Balconies shall be provided with sprinkler protection. I also have not seen yet an apartment complex that did not have dry side wall sprinkler heads in the breeseway.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Canook

The provision you cited is for Type V (wood frame) construction. The original poster did not tell us the construction type. If the building is of Type I, II, III or IV construction, the indicated section of the IFC does not require sprinklers.

In addition, the thread question asked about automatic sprinkler protection in a breezeway - not a balcony.

 

[twd22285]

Stookey
I think Canooks point was that if a balcony will require to be protected than surely a breezeway such as the one being discussed would require being sprinklered

 

[stookeyfpe]

A balcony is different than a breezeway. I've fought multiple fires involving open cooking on balconies that extended into the attic of the R-2 occupancies. I never experienced that in breezeways. Breezeways are the path from the apartment/condo parking lot to the dwelling. They are always kept clean and uncluttered because it's the entrance to the dwelling. I know - I lived in condos longer than I have lived in my single family dwelling. Plus, they are not conducive to an activity like outdoor cooking.

And I know the IFC (and I am sure NFPA 13R) does not require sprinklers in these areas because of the very low fire loss history. If it is not required then why spend the extra dollars? Because the AHJ says so? Sometimes code officials need to understand that the Fire and Building Codes are not a mechanism for them to create what they think is safe. The current model codes in the US do a darn good job so long as they are enforced.

I've said my $0.02 worth and will let it go. But I applaude SD2 for challenging this because again, the loss history does not support the extra costs.

 

[twd22285]

You are much more informed and experienced than i am on the issue it was a very informative $0.02 worth

 

[trashcanman]

When in doubt, add a sprinkler head. You are not adding a lot of cost.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Trashmancan

Ever heard of a change order? Your acceptance could cause a very significant financial charge to something not precribed. NFPA 13 whatever is a minimum standard - not a etch-a-sketch for AHJS. I know - I was one - once.

 

[trashcanman]

Sure. Ever hear of a lawsuit? Something as fuzzy as the interpretation could result in $$$ damages awarded in case of someone injured. Check with AHJ to be sure.