Fire Sprinklers in Roof Eave

[classicT]

Pretty healthy discussion here....not so much on the ICC forum.

https://www.iccsafe.org/forum/fire-codes/fire-sprinklers-in-roof-eave/

Excellent reason to support the forum and become a Sawhorse

 

[steveray]

>4'....sprinklers required or alternative....

 

[steveray]

Per this:
8.15.7.1
Unless the requirements of 8.15.7.2, 8.15.7.3, or 8.15.7.4 are met, sprinklers shall be installed under exterior roofs, canopies, porte-cocheres, balconies, decks, or similar projections exceeding 4 ft (1.2 m) in width.

 

[cda]

Not required for the roof line on this building,

Unless the plans are not showing everything.

 

[cda]

Like this, I would not require sprinklers on the upper overhangs, even if over four feet

https://www.remodeling.hw.net/how-to/a-common-sense-design-to-create-durable-overhangs_o

 

[steveray]

Doesn't meet .2 .3 or .4......Sprinklers required....

 

[classicT]

Doesn't meet .2 .3 or .4......Sprinklers required....

Why?

Will our 4' overhang be required to have sprinklers?

8.15.7.1
Unless the requirements of 8.15.7.2, 8.15.7.3, or 8.15.7.4 are met, sprinklers shall be installed under exterior roofs, canopies, porte-cocheres, balconies, decks, or similar projections exceeding 4 ft (1.2 m) in width.

8.15.7.5 *
Sprinklers shall be installed under roofs, canopies, porte-cocheres, balconies, decks, or similar projections greater than 2 ft (0.6 m) wide over areas where combustibles are stored.

8.15.7.1 only requires sprinklers on the underside of the eave if the roof eave exceeds 4-ft. Per the OP, the eave is 4-ft.
8.15.7.5 only requires sprinklers on the underside of the eave if the roof eave exceeds 4-ft and has combustibles stored under the eave.

Keep the eave at 4-ft and it does not have to be sprinkled.

 

[steveray]

The high roof has an eave greater than 4' and it is over the lower roof.

I'm not sure what the OP said....

 

[steveray]

But agree....keep it under 4'.....

 

[TWS2189]

Apologies for the lack of clarity. Our other design constraints push our upper eaves over 4'. Its similar to the image CDA shared. It seems illogical to have to have sprinklers at the upper eaves in this situation, but as stated .2 .3 and .4 don't except us.

Like this, I would not require sprinklers on the upper overhangs, even if over four feet

https://www.remodeling.hw.net/how-to/a-common-sense-design-to-create-durable-overhangs_o

View attachment 6224

 

[cda]

If you or someone is an ahj or nsfa member,

send for expert opinion,,, free

You can ask a regional nicely to submit it::

https://nfsa.org/field-ops/

or if a member go through the web site


https://members.nfsa.org/Login.aspx


or if an ahj join for FREE::

https://nfsa.org/ahj-promotional-membership/

 

[cda]

Apologies for the lack of clarity. Our other design constraints push our upper eaves over 4'. Its similar to the image CDA shared. It seems illogical to have to have sprinklers at the upper eaves in this situation, but as stated .2 .3 and .4 don't except us.

Agree

Do you have a fire sprinkler company you work with??
If so have you asked them the question

 

[classicT]

Apologies for the lack of clarity. Our other design constraints push our upper eaves over 4'. Its similar to the image CDA shared. It seems illogical to have to have sprinklers at the upper eaves in this situation, but as stated .2 .3 and .4 don't except us.

If over 4-ft, then I revise my prior opinions (I was under impression they were 4-ft) and agree that they are required.