Rated Coiling Door in an existing exterior wall

[SyrArch]

Hey there gurus - I have a condition in a project I am struggling with and was hoping someone here might be able to offer some guidance/ interpretation.

I’m working on a project involving an addition to an existing building. The new addition is classified as A-3, while the existing building contains a mix of A-3, B, and a small S-1 occupancy. The addition is connected to the existing structure via a corridor created by utilizing an existing exterior door. The existing building is fully sprinklered; however, the new addition is not sprinklered due to budget constraints.

To comply with the building and fire area requirements in the code, we’ve elected to use a fire-rated coiling door tied to the fire alarm system to provide the required separation. My question is: if I install a 2-hour rated overhead coiling door, am I also required to upgrade the existing wall it’s mounted to (formerly an exterior wall) to a 2-hour fire-resistance rating?

I hope that makes sense.

 

[steveray]

To not sprinkler the addition, it needs to be a separate building with a firewall and all of the details that go along with it.....

 

[TheCommish]

One again, inadequate budget being used and a reason to find an escape to code compliant sprinkler protection.

It maybe possible to build a code compliant firewall with the proper hourly rating of the wall and opening protctives, structuraly independent from each building, have the fire alarm detection and integration (providing the fire alarm panel can support integration) executed, and other associated cost of this method, good luck.

Spend the money on the sprinkler system, take advantage the design, construction methods and use flexibility offered immediately and in the future.

 

[steveray]

And I guess I spoke a little too quickly....How big is the building and how big is the addition and what are the occupant loads? (I assumed the building was already over a sprinkler threshold) It may be possible to call it 2 fire areas, and maybe a 2 or 3 hour wall to separate those fire areas....But yes, the wall and the door would need to be rated...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

To not sprinkler the addition, it needs to be a separate building with a firewall and all of the details that go along with it.....

Or a separate building with its own exterior wall, and both buildings meeting requirements for a zero fire separation distance.

 

[steveray]

Or a separate building with its own exterior wall, and both buildings meeting requirements for a zero fire separation distance.

Yeah...I don't like to work that hard for free....

 

[SyrArch]

Good evening and thank you for your responses.
The existing building is 8,443 (which includes a couple areas under covered porches).
The addition is 2,338.
The existing building is fully sprinklered with an occupant load of B(38), A-3(30), and S-1(3).
The addition, not sprinklered, has an occupant load of A-3(85).
The coiling door is not a required means of egress. We are using it strictly as separation should an event occur.

What I think may have happened in the design process is that we took a fully sprinklered, conforming building and now make it non-conforming because it is still a single building that is not fully sprinklered. So now we no longer can take the benefits that having a sprinkler building affords...like increased heights, areas, and frontage.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You are correct -- if the entire building is not sprinklered, you lose all benefits accruing from having a sprinklered building.

The owner should also check with their insurance underwriter. Most likely their rates are based on the building being sprinklered. If they change that status, I would expect their premiums to increase -- possibly significantly. It may seem like saving money to forego sprinklers in the addition, but it may be a false economy in terms of life cycle cost.

 

[steveray]

Good evening and thank you for your responses.
The existing building is 8,443 (which includes a couple areas under covered porches).
The addition is 2,338.
The existing building is fully sprinklered with an occupant load of B(38), A-3(30), and S-1(3).
The addition, not sprinklered, has an occupant load of A-3(85).
The coiling door is not a required means of egress. We are using it strictly as separation should an event occur.

What I think may have happened in the design process is that we took a fully sprinklered, conforming building and now make it non-conforming because it is still a single building that is not fully sprinklered. So now we no longer can take the benefits that having a sprinkler building affords...like increased heights, areas, and frontage.

So you would need a 3 hour firewall to not sprinkler the "addition" as a separate building or possibly a 2 or 3 hour fire barrier for a fire area...Nothing there shouts sprinklers to me unless you sprinkler A3 at 100 OL....Then you would need a separate fire area...