Existing R-3 - Sprinklers or no?

[JCraver]

Given:

2015 IBC, IEBC, IFC
Existing 2-story Type V, non-sprinkled, built 1920's
~3,000 sf per story
1st floor - B (Chiropractor's Office)
2nd floor - vacant R-3, proposed Level 3 Alteration (single-family, building owner and his wife want to move in. NOT live-work, they rent to the chiropractor)

2nd floor has it's own enclosed stair from the street to the dwelling unit. No openings anywhere between floors.

IEBC:

904.1 Automatic sprinkler systems. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in a work area where required by Section 804.2 or this section.

804.2 Automatic sprinkler systems. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Sections 804.2.1 through 804.2.5. Installation requirements shall be in accordance with the International Building Code.

804.2.2 Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2. In buildings with occupancies in Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2, work areas that have exits or corridors shared by more than one tenant or that have exits or corridors serving an occupant load greater than 30 shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection where all of the following conditions occur:
1. The work area is required to be provided with automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with the International Building Code as applicable to new construction; and
2. The work area exceeds 50 percent of the floor area.
Exception: If the building does not have sufficient municipal water supply for design of a fire sprinkler system available to the floor without installation of a new fire pump, work areas shall be protected by an automatic smoke detection system throughout all occupiable spaces other than sleeping units or individual dwelling units that activates the occupant notification system in accordance with Sections 907.4, 907.5 and 907.6 of the International Building Code.


So no sprinklers required, correct? I can't find anything anywhere that says a remodeled R-3 must be sprinkled..

 

[RLGA]

Why use the Work Area Compliance Method for such a simple project? Just use the Prescriptive Compliance Method and comply with Section 403, where there is no mention of sprinkler systems; just smoke alarms.

 

[JCraver]

Not designing it, just reviewing what was submitted..

 

[RLGA]

Well, since R-3 was not listed in IEBC Section 804.2.2, then I would say a sprinkler system is not required if the residential use is existing.

 

[JCraver]

That's where I'm at too, it just seems like weird code to me. Why require sprinklers virtually everywhere and then leave R-3 out? Especially since they're required in the IRC for single-family's?

Wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something. Thanks.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

Prescriptive compliance method can be used "...in buildings complying with the IFC.." (301.1.1 2015 EIBC)
If an occupancy is required to be sprinklered by IFC, but existing building is not, then I don't believe you can use the Prescriptive Compliance Method

 

[RLGA]

Prescriptive compliance method can be used "...in buildings complying with the IFC.." (301.1.1 2015 EIBC)
If an occupancy is required to be sprinklered by IFC, but existing building is not, then I don't believe you can use the Prescriptive Compliance Method

They only need to comply with IFC Chapter 11 for existing buildings--not the rest of the IFC applicable to new construction.

 

[cda]

Prescriptive compliance method can be used "...in buildings complying with the IFC.." (301.1.1 2015 EIBC)
If an occupancy is required to be sprinklered by IFC, but existing building is not, then I don't believe you can use the Prescriptive Compliance Method

Welcome !!

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

They only need to comply with IFC Chapter 11 for existing buildings--not the rest of the IFC applicable to new construction.

The requirement just says "complying with IFC" doesn't specifically say "chapter 11 of IFC".
Has there been an official interpretation of this. I'm debating with a building inspector over sprinkler requirements for existing A-2 occupancy, level 2 Alt.

 

[RLGA]

The requirement just says "complying with IFC" doesn't specifically say "chapter 11 of IFC".
Has there been an official interpretation of this. I'm debating with a building inspector over sprinkler requirements for existing A-2 occupancy, level 2 Alt.

If it's an existing building, it need only comply with Chapter 11--that is considered compliance with the IFC (in regard to construction in existing buildings). However, if the building also includes a special operation/occupancy and/or hazardous materials, then Parts IV and V of the IFC, respectively, would also be applicable. If the work on the existing building is an addition, of course, the IFC requirements for new construction would be applicable. Similarly, changes of occupancy, which typically require full compliance with the IBC (with some exceptions), would also require compliance with the IFC for new construction.

Regarding your issue, if you're using the work area compliance method, why would the requirements for the prescriptive compliance method be of concern? Level 2 Alterations only require the addition of a sprinkler system per Section 804.2.2 when the occupant load is greater than 30, a sprinkler system is required by the IBC for new construction (i.e., fire area exceeds 5,000 sq. ft., the fire area has an occupant load of 100 or more, or the fire area is located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge per IBC Section 903.2.1.2), and the work area exceeds 50 percent of the floor area. All three of those must apply to your building in order to require a sprinkler system. If that is the situation, then I would agree with the inspector.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

I'm trying to not sprinkler this building, which from what you are saying the prescriptive compliance method would achieve. And I will bring this up to the inspector
But it doesn't seem logical to me that the work area compliance would require it but the prescriptive method would not.

Regarding the work area , level 2 alt, part of the argument with the inspector is what constitutes the 'work area' and specifically the definition of 'reconfigured space".
If my dining room footprint and sq.ft remains the same, I dont remove or add any walls, and don't alter the path of egress, but only relocate the bar to another location in the room, is that considered reconfigured space?

 

[RLGA]

I'm trying to not sprinkler this building, which from what you are saying the prescriptive compliance method would achieve. And I will bring this up to the inspector
But it doesn't seem logical to me that the work area compliance would require it but the prescriptive method would not.

Regarding the work area , level 2 alt, part of the argument with the inspector is what constitutes the 'work area' and specifically the definition of 'reconfigured space".
If my dining room footprint and sq.ft remains the same, I dont remove or add any walls, and don't alter the path of egress, but only relocate the bar to another location in the room, is that considered reconfigured space?

As I stated in the other thread, it is considered reconfigured space if the room is permanently changed. Moving the bar permanently changes the configuration of the room.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

By that logic if a table is moved then the entire space is reconfigured , and if that space is more than 50% of floor area than I would have to sprinkler the place.
I don't believe that is the intent of the code, which is safety. Adding and removing walls, and changing egress paths are things that effect safety and doing those things to more than 50% of the space seams a threshold that approaches new construction and probably should require sprinklers.

 

[RLGA]

By that logic if a table is moved then the entire space is reconfigured , and if that space is more than 50% of floor area than I would have to sprinkler the place.
I don't believe that is the intent of the code, which is safety. Adding and removing walls, and changing egress paths are things that effect safety and doing those things to more than 50% of the space seams a threshold that approaches new construction and probably should require sprinklers.

Note that I said "permanently" change--moving a table is not a permanent change, whereas moving a built-in booth would be.

 

[cda]

Icc welcomes code change proposals to include definitions :::


https://www.iccsafe.org/products-and-services/standards/standards-public-forms/