• 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 walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

Builder Bob

Builder Bob

Sawhorse
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,417
Location
Sunny SC - Coastal (not Charleston or Myrtle Beach
We have a facility that was reviewed by another state department that has allowed a fire sprinkler system to transverse across and through a firewall to serve a portion of the building on the other side. (52,000 Square foot limitation for sprinkelr riser.)

The sprinkler system #1 serves building A and then passes thru a firewall to serve about 50 feet beyond the fire wall.

*

Sprinkler system # 2 serves another building but fails to be larger enough to serve this building so a portion of this building is served by sprinkler system # 1.

* This is a school -

* From the old codes, fire walls created a seperate and distinct building - own water service, sewer, fire protection, etc.

In accordance with the I-Codes, this arrangememnt is allowable since the fire wall in this case is not a party wall, but more of the U-code ASW.

Can anybody prove this theory wrong using the current I-codes - 03, 06, or even the 09 edition?
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

If one owner/ one business building and does not cross property lines I would say the answer is NO, good to go.

I don't remember in the U codes that you could no have the same set up

almost like a hospital where you have various fire walls and sprinkler pipe running thorugh them
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

That's why there is a distinction between "property line" and "lot line" in the code and between "fire wall" and "party wall."

If the fire wall is on a lot line it is a party wall and no penetrations are allowed. The assumption is that there are separate owners and separate control over anything that can happen from one side to the other. If it's just a fire wall then the entire structure is on one lot and any division of ownership has to address that fact so there woudl likely be a "condominium" owner for the whole thing that can control what happens.

Fire wall - penetration OK :)

Paty wall - penetration bad :evil:
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

Builder Bob,

From what you've described, it sounds like a school with an original structure (Bldg. A) and a new "addition" (Bldg. B) that was constructed adjacent to the original structure with a fire wall in between so that the original structure did not have to be brought up to code for new construction... If that is the case (or something similar), then the same sprinkler supply main can serve areas on both sides of the fire wall, but it would have to be zoned separately because each area on either side of the fire wall is considered a separate building. Also, if it is a fire wall (and not a fire barrier), then you have to meet the structural stability requirement that would allow collapse on one side without collapse of the wall - if you have a sprinkler system spanning across a fire wall and it is attached to the structure on both sides of the fire wall, I doubt that would meet structural stability.
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

IJHumberson

I do not think that different zones are rquired for the sprinkler, think of a hospital or similar where there are fire walls, and seperate zoning is not required, unless I am missing a code section or nfpa 13 section
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

cda said:
IJHumberson I do not think that different zones are rquired for the sprinkler, think of a hospital or similar where there are fire walls, and seperate zoning is not required, unless I am missing a code section or nfpa 13 section
Click to expand...
I would say OK, as long as it remains a school with one owner...or anything with one owner.
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

The project in question is a brand new school....... and is allowed by the newer I-codes..... Nothing in the code requires the sprinkler system to remain independnent of the fire wall as it isn't a strucutral component.

Time for me to retire.........IMHO it is wrong. But I have to allow itbecuase I can't make up the code.
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

from cda:I do not think that different zones are rquired for the sprinkler, think of a hospital or similar where there are fire walls, and seperate zoning is not required, unless I am missing a code section or nfpa 13 section
Click to expand...
Well, if you are talking "fire walls" and not "fire barriers" and you are using these fire walls to create separate buildings, why would you have a single sprinkler (and fire alarm) system serving multiple buildings? For instance, if you have more than one building on a single lot, and the buildings are separated by a physical distance (10 ft., 50 ft., whatever), then you would in all likelihood have a separate sprinkler system and a separate fire alarm system in each building, but now you build the buildings so that they are abutting each other and a fire wall is placed between the two buildings in order to be able to construct them immediately adjacent to each other – IMHO, these are still separate buildings and should be treated as such with respect to fire protection systems. If you are treating them as separate buildings, why would you evacuate all of the buildings for a fire incident in one building – it’s not done when the buildings are separated by distance, so why would it be done when they are separated by a properly rated fire wall?
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

The sprinkler system #1 serves building A and then passes thru a firewall to serve about 50 feet beyond the fire wall.*

Sprinkler system # 2 serves another building but fails to be larger enough to serve this building so a portion of this building is served by sprinkler system # 1.
Click to expand...
My humble opinion is that at least three separate sprinkler risers are required. The purpose of a fire wall is to create separate buildings and to allow collapse of one building without impacting the other. If the building with sprinkler system #1 collapses, that portion of the other building is left without protection. The building with sprinkler system #1 needs system #1a. A single water source could supply all three risers.
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

If the fire wall is a requirement of Section 503 to get an area increase then no problem it is the same as the old ASW concept you are just dividing/reducing the fire areas of a large structure into smaller ones.

705.1 uses a fire wall to create separate buildings such as a strip center with a TJmax, Borders, Ross and Target are all connected but seperate and distinct buildings but joined by fire walls. Each has its own FS, alarm, plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems.

705.1 General.

Each portion of a building separated by one or more fire walls that comply with the provisions of this section shall be considered a separate building. The extent and location of such fire walls shall provide a complete separation. Where a fire wall also separates occupancies that are required to be separated by a fire barrier wall, the most restrictive requirements of each separation shall apply.
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

it is not nice to have multiple fdc's on a single building even though there are fire walls in it.

you can have a large building and have collapse and lose the sprinkler protection, so do not feel that is a good reason

as long as one business in the building and even though there are fire walls in the building can be served by one riser as long as not over the sq ft allowed.

so would you also require seperate water, electricity for each side????? if one business/ owner???

what about stirp malls about the same set up with out fire walls sometimes and served by one riser
 
Re: Fire walls - didn't want to hijack overhead fire shutters

See Section 705.8 through 705.11. These Sections allow Openings, Penetrations and HVAC through firewalls. In the old SBC the only allowed item in the firewall was an opening and the wall's rating was 4-hours period. The IBC allows different ratings for a firewall as well as Openings, Penetrations and HVAC items. So I do not see why the sprinkler system cannot penetrate the firewall. Take particular review of the Size and Aggregate width of all openings in 705.8 and 705.11 do not exceed limits set in 705.8. Reiterate "AGGREGATE!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top