Fire Sprinklers at covered canopy with temporary enclosure?

[Truck3capt]

We have a fairly new strip center with an Assembly Occupancy (bar/restaurant) in the last tenant space. The entire strip center was fully sprinklered when constructed in anticipation of tenant spaces that would require them based on their occupancy and I also . Shortly after the bar in question opened they applied for a permit to put a fabric covered canopy over a metal frame to cover an outdoor seating area. The outdoor seating area was open on 3 sides and was accessed by an additional non-required exit from the bar. At the time of that application we did not require them to extend the fire sprinkler coverage to the covered area because the building roof did not project over the seating area (just the applied non-combustible canopy framing and fabric ), the exit to the seating area from the bar was not a required exit (they already had two additional for the calc. occ load of 68), and the seating area was open on three sides allowing for sufficient exiting.

Flash forward to November and now they want to enclose the seating area with a tent structure and put portable heaters under it. My thought process is that it meets the definition of a fire area once it's completely enclosed and will need to have the sprinkler coverage extended to protect the newly enclosed seating area. Am I all wet ? referencing 2012 ICC Thanks

 

[classicT]

Sounds to me as if it is a temporary structure.

Section 108 Temporary Structures and Uses

108.1 General
The building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures and temporary uses. Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official is authorized to grant extensions for demonstrated cause.

108.2 Conformance
Temporary structures and uses shall conform to the structural strength, fire safety, means of egress, accessibility, light, ventilation and sanitary requirements of this code as necessary to ensure public health, safety and general welfare.​

That said, as noted under IBC 108.1, it must still comply with certain provisions of the code. Get decent egress (2 exits) and keep ignition sources away from the tent structure.

 

[cda]

It should have been done when added

Under NFPA 13 canopy over 4 feet, with stuff under it.

And since it will get cold next year and they want to wrap it again

The sprinklers will be there

one or two or sidewalls should do, less piping

 

[TheCommish]

sprinkler, especially with heating appliance under the cover

 

[steveray]

I'm with cda...This is what happens when you allow something you shouldn't and then try to backpedal.....Fire area has nothing to do with walls and then you have the whole NFPA 13 piece to deal with on "overhangs" or however they write it....

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and
bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal
assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area
if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of
the roof or floor next above.

 

[Truck3capt]

I'm with cda...This is what happens when you allow something you shouldn't and then try to backpedal.....Fire area has nothing to do with walls and then you have the whole NFPA 13 piece to deal with on "overhangs" or however they write it....

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and
bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal
assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area
if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of
the roof or floor next above.

Believe me we had this discussion at length when this went in originally because we were having the request at several locations. The "Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above" language was batted back and forth between our office and the building department. I realize the commentary isn't enforceable but the fire area definition was the debate that came up based on the definitions and the commentary. The commentary shows a gable roof on a building that extends past the exterior wall over a patio area. It also shows a floor above cantilevering over an area below. The designer contended that the intent of the language meant that the actual building roof or floor structure needed to extend over the area in question to be included in the fire area unless it was enclosed with walls.

Then you also have the code language and definition of a canopy as well as the commentary on how it is to be constructed. I'm not trying to back pedal anything but I'm also not inclined to require something just because if they can show me some language or reasoning for why they don't think it's required. That said, I suspected that this very thing would happen once it got cold and they would want to enclose it. I tried to get them to just punch a couple dry heads through the wall when they originally proposed the canopy. The designer balked due to a fairly elaborate gyp ceiling detail that they didn't want to open up in order to add the heads and the whole fire area discussion above. I was ultimately over ruled based on that discussion.

I also have issue that the sprinklers, while provided in the structure, are a non-required system. So while NFPA 13 requires the over hangs over 4 feet be protected I have to have building or fire code language to require the system in the first place before I can apply the NFPA standard for installation, correct? I'm inclined to require the heads and move on but I wondered if anyone had ever had this discussion concerning the fire area and canopy definitions. Thanks for all the input.

 

[mtlogcabin]

What is the occupant load of the outdoor seating area?

 

[cda]

Believe me we had this discussion at length when this went in originally because we were having the request at several locations. The "Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above" language was batted back and forth between our office and the building department. I realize the commentary isn't enforceable but the fire area definition was the debate that came up based on the definitions and the commentary. The commentary shows a gable roof on a building that extends past the exterior wall over a patio area. It also shows a floor above cantilevering over an area below. The designer contended that the intent of the language meant that the actual building roof or floor structure needed to extend over the area in question to be included in the fire area unless it was enclosed with walls.

Then you also have the code language and definition of a canopy as well as the commentary on how it is to be constructed. I'm not trying to back pedal anything but I'm also not inclined to require something just because if they can show me some language or reasoning for why they don't think it's required. That said, I suspected that this very thing would happen once it got cold and they would want to enclose it. I tried to get them to just punch a couple dry heads through the wall when they originally proposed the canopy. The designer balked due to a fairly elaborate gyp ceiling detail that they didn't want to open up in order to add the heads and the whole fire area discussion above. I was ultimately over ruled based on that discussion.

I also have issue that the sprinklers, while provided in the structure, are a non-required system. So while NFPA 13 requires the over hangs over 4 feet be protected I have to have building or fire code language to require the system in the first place before I can apply the NFPA standard for installation, correct? I'm inclined to require the heads and move on but I wondered if anyone had ever had this discussion concerning the fire area and canopy definitions. Thanks for all the input.

Nooooooo

My opinion and argument is

Once you invoke NFPA 13 you SHALL follow it.

So if a canopy under NFPA 13 is required protection you shall do it.


Otherwise if the argument is a sprinkler system is not required, than they can do what they want

Ok sprinkler, one twenty feet away, another four feet from that one, nah I don’t need to install all those sprinklers,,,

just a few??

HUH?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Tent no way, membrane structure if they follow the regs.

SECTION 3102
MEMBRANE STRUCTURES
3102.1 General.
The provisions of Sections 3102.1 through 3102.8 shall apply to air-supported, air-inflated, membrane-covered cable and membrane-covered frame structures, collectively known as membrane structures, erected for a period of 180 days or longer. Those erected for a shorter period of time shall comply with the International Fire Code. Membrane structures covering water storage facilities, water clarifiers, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, greenhouses and similar facilities not used for human occupancy are required to meet only the requirements of Sections 3102.3.1 and 3102.7. Membrane structures erected on a building, balcony, deck or other structure for any period of time shall comply with this section.

3102.6 Mixed construction.
Membrane structures shall be permitted to be utilized as specified in this section as a portion of buildings of other types of construction. Height and area limits shall be as specified for the type of construction and occupancy of the building.
3102.6.1 Noncombustible membrane.
A noncombustible membrane shall be permitted for use as the roof or as a skylight of any building or atrium of a building of any type of construction provided it is not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) above any floor, balcony or gallery.
3102.6.1.1 Membrane.
A membrane meeting the fire propagation performance criteria of NFPA 701 shall be permitted to be used as the roof or as a skylight on buildings of Types IIB, III, IV and V construction, provided it is not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) above any floor, balcony or gallery.

 

[steveray]

Mixed use separated or not? You say "strip center", what is the OL and did it bump up with the patio?

 

[Truck3capt]

What is the occupant load of the outdoor seating area?

36. Which is another discussion that came out of these outdoor seating areas and the whole fire area discussion. If the outside occ load has it's own independent exiting (when installed it was open on three sides) and none of that occ load has to exit back through the bar/restaurant (it's occ load is 68) then is it added to the occ load of the bar if they have enough exits without having to exit through the bar?

 

[cda]

Normally the stricter of codes or standards applies.


Once a building has a fire sprinkler system installed, unless there is an exception in the IBC or IFC,,,,, NFPA 13 wins.

So canopy/ patio cover, what ever over four feet shall have fire sprinkler protection.


Not an uncommon requirement, for the outdoor covered, attached patios, enclosures, whatever it is called.

 

[Truck3capt]

Mixed use separated or not? You say "strip center", what is the OL and did it bump up with the patio?

Separated but I did a little more research on the original shell permit and it looks like they were bumping up against the area limitations for Type 5B construction and provided the sprinklers in the whole building to get an area modification so I believe it is actually a required system.

The occ load of canopy area was 36 and open on three sides.

 

[Truck3capt]

Nooooooo

My opinion and argument is

Once you invoke NFPA 13 you SHALL follow it.

So if a canopy under NFPA 13 is required protection you shall do it.


Otherwise if the argument is a sprinkler system is not required, than they can do what they want

Ok sprinkler, one twenty feet away, another four feet from that one, nah I don’t need to install all those sprinklers,,,

just a few??

HUH?

Cda , looks like a moot point. After further research, I think the sprinklers were required due to an area modification for a type 5 construction type. We're kinda headed down a different rabbit hole with the required vs. non-required systems but it's kinda related and it comes up frequently.
901.4.2 Nonrequired fire protection systems. Any fire
protection system or portion thereof not required by this
code or the International Building Code shall be allowed to
be furnished for partial or complete protection provided
such installed system meets the applicable requirements of
this code and the International Building Code.

Full agreement that if you provide a non-required system in a space that the system design density , spacing, required water supply etc will be in accordance with NFPA 13 or the appropriate standard. The discussion that came up recently came up due to the partial or complete protection language above and the associated commentary "the extent of the protection would not be regulated" . Again it's from the commentary but what do we think that means? My example is a restaurant/bar that was sprinklered and is now a being remodeled into a bank (B use) and they want to add a covered drive through. The bank would like to keep the sprinkler system but prefer not to extend coverage to the drive canopy or build it from non-combustible material. Given the level of demolition they are also considering removing the existing system entirely if we require them to extend the protection to the canopy. I'm always going to be a proponent of fire sprinklers but I also don't want to encourage an owner to remove a perfectly operational system from the rest of the building if that's not what the intent of the non-required system language. Sorry long winded and it's probably a discussion for another thread but kinda related.

 

[steveray]

[F] 903.2.1.2 Group A-2. An automatic sprinkler system
shall be provided for fire areas containing Group
A-2 occupancies and intervening floors of the building
where one of the following conditions exists:
1. The fire area exceeds 5,000 square feet (464.5
m2).
2. The fire area has an occupant load of 100 or
more.
3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a
level of exit discharge serving such occupancies.

Indoors....outdoors....all the same fire area unless separated by fire barriers....

 

[cda]

So does it look similar to this:::

Yes they have drop curtains for cold wet days::








Yes sprinklers are there

 

[cda]

What is the total occupant load of the restaurant/bar??

 

[Truck3capt]

So does it look similar to this:::

Yes they have drop curtains for cold wet days::


View attachment 6135 View attachment 6136 View attachment 6137





Yes sprinklers are there

The canopy structure is similar, aluminum frame and a fabric that met 701. No sides at all currently, essentially shade and rain protection. They called the mechanical inspector about what type of heater they can use to heat the space when they enclose the side with a membrane from a local tent manufacturer. He referred them to our office for direction.

 

[Truck3capt]

What is the total occupant load of the restaurant/bar??

68 at the bar. 36 in the patio area.

 

[cda]

Over 100???

 

[cda]

 

[Truck3capt]

[F] 903.2.1.2 Group A-2. An automatic sprinkler system
shall be provided for fire areas containing Group
A-2 occupancies and intervening floors of the building
where one of the following conditions exists:
1. The fire area exceeds 5,000 square feet (464.5
m2).
2. The fire area has an occupant load of 100 or
more.
3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a
level of exit discharge serving such occupancies.

Indoors....outdoors....all the same fire area unless separated by fire barriers....

In this case the cumulative occ load exceeding 100 of the fire area drives the sprinkler (outside of the area modification I think they took) requirement and I understand that completely. The challenge we had posed to us was based on the definition of fire area in the 2012 IBC.

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and
bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal
assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area
if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of
the roof or floor next above.

This definition and the associated commentary was the basis of their disagreement. They didn't agree that the covered area was part of the fire area for the building because based on this definition, the canopy wasn't a horizontal projection of the building roof or floor above and also didn't meet the definition of a horizontal assembly, therefore it wasn't to be included in the fire area for the bar which kept the occ load under the 100 # that kicks in the sprinkler requirement. Maybe it should have been more of a discussion of what the definition of a fire area is? Maybe the definition in the IBC could be better?

If they intend to enclose the thing with walls then it absolutely meets the definition of a a fire area and requires the sprinkler extension. whew...sorry. I'm not trying to be difficult but maybe I should have asked the question differently.
This

 

[Truck3capt]

View attachment 6138

cda,
I've read the commentary and I'm not trying to be difficult with you but what do you think they mean by "The extent of the protection provided would not be regulated." The example earlier in that paragraph mentions "certain areas". It sounds like they are acknowledging that a building owner could provide a non-required system in any space of a structure and it's acceptable as long as the installation of that system, ie. spacing, piping, inspection, monitoring, materials, testing, maint, water supply . etc would need to meet the requirements of NFPA 13 or 13R. Is it just bad language in the commentary?

 

[classicT]

In this case the cumulative occ load exceeding 100 of the fire area drives the sprinkler (outside of the area modification I think they took) requirement and I understand that completely. The challenge we had posed to us was based on the definition of fire area in the 2012 IBC.

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and
bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal
assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area
if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of
the roof or floor next above.

This definition and the associated commentary was the basis of their disagreement. They didn't agree that the covered area was part of the fire area for the building because based on this definition, the canopy wasn't a horizontal projection of the building roof or floor above and also didn't meet the definition of a horizontal assembly, therefore it wasn't to be included in the fire area for the bar which kept the occ load under the 100 # that kicks in the sprinkler requirement. Maybe it should have been more of a discussion of what the definition of a fire area is? Maybe the definition in the IBC could be better?

If they intend to enclose the thing with walls then it absolutely meets the definition of a a fire area and requires the sprinkler extension. whew...sorry. I'm not trying to be difficult but maybe I should have asked the question differently.
This

Well, if they do not want to treat it as a portion of the existing building, then remind them of what is required for fire separation distance between buildings/structures. Imaginary lot line between the existing building and the tent structure; fire separation distance and rated exterior walls will kill it.