• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Fire suppression requirements question

rktect 1

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,109
Location
Illinois
I have just not seen it done this way. Maybe its correct.

So, way back in like 2015 the municipality decided that they wanted to make sure certain uses and or reconstruction permits would trigger fire suppression. What they did was to adopt the following codes. 2015 IRC, 2015 IBC, 2015 IFC and the 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code. The goal was to make sure that in residential, all new homes and any home that went through more than 50% combination of addition plus "rehabilitation work area" would need to install fire suppression. In commercial they wanted the same, sort of. They amended the IBC/IFC so that in section 903, all Use Groups (just the ones already listed such as A-1/2/3/4, E, F-1, H, I, M, R, S-1, S-2 enclosed parking garages. So no mention of B, F-2, the rest of S-2 and whatever other use group is not already listed in new buildings fire areas was set to 5,000 sq. ft. In plan review, no matter what comes in, say a B business building or an F-2 that undergoes more than 50% rehabilitation work area as defined in the life safety code section 43.6 reconstruction or 43.8 additions.

For some reason, and I am no guru of the fire codes, this does not seem correct to me.

Now, lets say an existing space in a 10,000 sq. ft. building with three units comes in and one of those spaces, being 3500 sq. ft. undergoes a complete remodel, should a fire suppression system be required in it? If it is a B use vs an M use? If an M use space is not 5,000 sq. ft., wouldn't that right there exempt them from a fire suppression system even though the entire building is 10,000 sq ft?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Section 43.6.4.1
Delete all & insert “In a building with rehabilitation work areas involving modification, or reconstruction of over 50% of the aggregate building area, and/or when 50% or more of the aggregate wall and ceiling finishes (plaster. plaster board. gypsum board. suspended ceiling systems. etc.) is being removed down to the framing, automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided on the highest floor containing a rehabilitation work area and on all floors below in accordance with the requirements of other sections of this Code applicable to new construction for the occupancy.”

Section 43.6.4.2
Delete all & insert “On any story with rehabilitation work areas involving modification, or reconstruction of over 50% of the area of the story, and/or when 50% or more of aggregate wall and ceiling finishes (plaster, plaster board, gypsum board, suspended ceiling systems, etc.) is being removed down to the framing, a sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the story in accordance with the requirements of other sections of this Code applicable to new construction for the occupancy.”

Section 43.8.1.1
delete all & insert “Where an addition, as defined in 43.2.2.1.7, is made to a building, the following criterion shall be met:”
& insert line “(1) Whenever a residential dwelling undergoes construction resulting in an addition that is 50% or greater than the size of the original structure, the entire structure shall be subject to the fire protection requirements in accordance with the adopted codes applicable to new construction for the occupancy.”

Section 43.8.1.3
delete & insert “Any modification or reconstruction work within an existing building to which an addition is being made shall comply with the requirements of Sections 43.5 and 43.6.”
 
What doesn’t seem correct? That they attempted to define the threshold for compliance?
It just seems like it should be a lot clearer to me and reflect the requirements of the IBC and IFC.

Example: I am currently looking at an I-4 daycare. The stand alone building is a type 2b with an area of 80x50=4000 sq. ft. The IFC and IBC both do not require a fire suppression system. Our amendments to the IBC and IFC would require a system if OVER 5000 sq. ft. But, now if I apply the Life Safety code section 43.6. Reconstruction (see definition at 43.2.2.1.4), and they are in fact doing a gut remodel "rehabilitation work area" (see definition at 3.3.21.8) it appears that a fire suppression system would now be required for the 4000 sq. ft. I-4 build out.

Add for correction: The IFC and IBC would require the fire suppression system for I-4 unless it met the exceptions no matter what sq. ft. area.

So really shouldn't the IBC and IFC requirement of a minimum area of 5000 sq. ft. supercede the Life Safety code requirement?
 
Last edited:
$ ~ $

rktect1, does the municipality in question prioritize which
construction code takes precendent ?......Is it stated \ legally
adopted that the Life Safety Code shall take precedence
before the IBC \ IFC ?


$ ~ $
 
Top