Sifu
SAWHORSE
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,326
I do not conduct fire reviews, because I am not qualified to do so. Those reviews are conducted by the local fire agency in every AHJ in which I have worked except one. In that one, the building department had it's own fire plans staff.
So I work concurrently but entirely separate from the local fire agency, who conducts a review of the same plans I do on the same permit, but they have requirements for additional permits and plans that I never see for sprinklers and alarms. The plans very rarely have any technical details for alarms and sprinklers. I try to determine the appropriate systems knowing those systems will be examined by the fire authority separately.
I have always taken the approach that I work from the IBC, which scopes those systems, and they work from the IFC & NFPA for the technical provisions. For example, from a given plan reviewing from the IBC I can determine that a building is not suitable for a proposed NFPA 13R system based on construction type and occupancy classification from ch. 5 and allowable area. My reviews examine the building for all relevant requirements of the entire IBC. It seems their reviews only look at IFC ch. 9 and NFPA 13R. My conclusion is that I look at whether a building fits into the allowable area for using a 13R system first, then 903.3.1.2 could be applied if the building is four stories or less. If my conclusions are wrong, then I need to go back to the drawing board. If they are right, read on.
Sometimes (as in this case) my comments reflect that the proposed 13R system is not approved, and why. So no matter what, from the start, they can't be approved.
Enter the fire authority, that apparently looks only at the provisions of ch. 9 of the IFC, and NFPA 13R. IBC 903.3.1.2 tells me a 13R system can be installed in an R2 up to and including a 4 story building, (and I assume that relies on the allowable area limitations of IBC ch. 5). NFPA 13R 1.1. says the same thing. So both the IBC ch. 9 and IFC ch. 9 scope the same thing. But if only using the IFC and NFPA 13R, there is no allowable area analysis as far as I can tell.
The result is the fire authority "approving" the building as designed with a 13R system, while I reject the same building. The applicant sees competing reviews, one is approved, the other is rejected.
Many fire authorities I overlap only look through the magnifying glass of IBC/IFC ch. 9 and the NFPA. Some also look somewhat more closely and ch. 10, but even that is rare. Only one I have worked for had reviewers that had an understanding and/or inclination to look at the other relevant portions of the IBC, and we would collaborate and present consistent comments.
Most of the time I will reject a plan for issues like this, and include multiple issues with EATD, CPET, door swing, hardware etc. The same plans will be approved by the fire authority with a canned comment to make sure they secure their sprinkler and alarm permits. I rarely ever see any comments that coincide with mine for issues outside of IBC/IFC ch. 9.
By the time my review comments are returned with a rejection, the applicant has been sitting on an "approved" plan from the fire department for a couple of weeks. They resubmit to me with a new proposal, whether they resubmit to the FD I never know, however MANY times they do not.
If my supposition that the allowable area must be satisfied first and then 903.3.1.2 is applied is correct, would it be beneficial for IBC/IFC 903.3.1.2 to include a reference that they can be installed up to and including 4 stories when meeting the allowable area provisions of ch. 5? That is something I have inferred (hopefully correctly), but is not expressed in the code.
The system I have described is common in the areas in which I work. I can't change it. I can't impose my views on the fire authority. That is why I wonder if adding that small section to IBC/IFC 903.3.1.2 might help.
In this one case that prompted this post, the architect details that the allowable area is exceeded, but that they can still use a 13R system because 903.3.1.2 tells them they can. One of us is wrong. Gosh I hope it's not me.
So I work concurrently but entirely separate from the local fire agency, who conducts a review of the same plans I do on the same permit, but they have requirements for additional permits and plans that I never see for sprinklers and alarms. The plans very rarely have any technical details for alarms and sprinklers. I try to determine the appropriate systems knowing those systems will be examined by the fire authority separately.
I have always taken the approach that I work from the IBC, which scopes those systems, and they work from the IFC & NFPA for the technical provisions. For example, from a given plan reviewing from the IBC I can determine that a building is not suitable for a proposed NFPA 13R system based on construction type and occupancy classification from ch. 5 and allowable area. My reviews examine the building for all relevant requirements of the entire IBC. It seems their reviews only look at IFC ch. 9 and NFPA 13R. My conclusion is that I look at whether a building fits into the allowable area for using a 13R system first, then 903.3.1.2 could be applied if the building is four stories or less. If my conclusions are wrong, then I need to go back to the drawing board. If they are right, read on.
Sometimes (as in this case) my comments reflect that the proposed 13R system is not approved, and why. So no matter what, from the start, they can't be approved.
Enter the fire authority, that apparently looks only at the provisions of ch. 9 of the IFC, and NFPA 13R. IBC 903.3.1.2 tells me a 13R system can be installed in an R2 up to and including a 4 story building, (and I assume that relies on the allowable area limitations of IBC ch. 5). NFPA 13R 1.1. says the same thing. So both the IBC ch. 9 and IFC ch. 9 scope the same thing. But if only using the IFC and NFPA 13R, there is no allowable area analysis as far as I can tell.
The result is the fire authority "approving" the building as designed with a 13R system, while I reject the same building. The applicant sees competing reviews, one is approved, the other is rejected.
Many fire authorities I overlap only look through the magnifying glass of IBC/IFC ch. 9 and the NFPA. Some also look somewhat more closely and ch. 10, but even that is rare. Only one I have worked for had reviewers that had an understanding and/or inclination to look at the other relevant portions of the IBC, and we would collaborate and present consistent comments.
Most of the time I will reject a plan for issues like this, and include multiple issues with EATD, CPET, door swing, hardware etc. The same plans will be approved by the fire authority with a canned comment to make sure they secure their sprinkler and alarm permits. I rarely ever see any comments that coincide with mine for issues outside of IBC/IFC ch. 9.
By the time my review comments are returned with a rejection, the applicant has been sitting on an "approved" plan from the fire department for a couple of weeks. They resubmit to me with a new proposal, whether they resubmit to the FD I never know, however MANY times they do not.
If my supposition that the allowable area must be satisfied first and then 903.3.1.2 is applied is correct, would it be beneficial for IBC/IFC 903.3.1.2 to include a reference that they can be installed up to and including 4 stories when meeting the allowable area provisions of ch. 5? That is something I have inferred (hopefully correctly), but is not expressed in the code.
The system I have described is common in the areas in which I work. I can't change it. I can't impose my views on the fire authority. That is why I wonder if adding that small section to IBC/IFC 903.3.1.2 might help.
In this one case that prompted this post, the architect details that the allowable area is exceeded, but that they can still use a 13R system because 903.3.1.2 tells them they can. One of us is wrong. Gosh I hope it's not me.
