Help wanted re: Fire protection system removal

[FM William Burns]

Existing Telecommunications/Office/Storage Building

Don't know the age built or year (or permitting) to date

Building has a Halon fire protection system and limited area detection and alarm. The owners want to remove the Halon and want to know if they need to replace protection or just upgrade detection and alarm.

Searching through the building code with the 901 stuff and IEBC Chapter 4-6 now with alterations like Level 1. The newer codes give a free pass to telecommunications areas in omitting sprinklers if detection and separation exist, so the alternatives would not be in play today either.

Q1: Were these types of buildings required to have protection back in the day under legacy codes?

Q2: If not a requirement historically then I guess they don't need any protection unless their Insurance company requires it huh?

I would appreciate your thoughts

 

[Dr. J]

One way of looking at it is that there is no fire protection system now, so there would be no change. Code does not recognize single shot gas based systems as providing an automatic fire suppession system. Where automatic fire suppression is required, the use of an inert gas is seen as supplementary, not a replacement.

I can recall from memory, (don't have the books handy) at least back to 97 or 94 UBC that the telecommunications facility exception was there. As I recall, it was still "where approved by the AHJ".

I have done a share of (major 3 letter telecom company) facilities, and this is always the first question to the AHJ. Some allow it some don't. I am aware of a 14 story 50-ish year old downtown building with only sporadic sprinklering (interestingly, the loading has gone down consderably over the years due to technology). I am pretty sure the responding fire company has marshmallows on their rigs.

 

[FM William Burns]

Dr J,

We were beginning to think we might need to order bags of marshmallows also. In this case the building poses a difficult fire suppression venture due to no ventilation openings and concrete Twin T roof construction. Since the owners want to "remove" the existing protection which would meet current code provisions with the new 2009 free pass to telecommunication buildings provided the separation and detection were in place (which it is); the criteria for windowless/openless 2nd floors remains in play so sprinklers would still be required.

Since this would be the case, we now interpret it as the owners could use the alternative fire extinguishing section and replace the Halon with a new alternative. The consultants really don't want to go into having to meet the energy stuff if we head down the modifications road so I think we are now on the same page. We realize the damage water will do to all their equipment and since the building will have minimal occupancy at very few intervals, having something like a clean agent to protect the hazard will give us a chance since ventilation in the limited opening building will be a pain.

 

[Builder Bob]

In the SBCCI codes, no protection was required.....so the answer to your question would be number 2 in our part of the world.

"If not a requirement historically then I guess they don't need any protection unless their Insurance company requires it huh"

 

[Coug Dad]

Protection was generally not required in telecommunications buildings unless they were large enough to have the windowless provisions apply. Halon was put in because the equipment was relativley expensive and loss of a switch would impact thier network. Without more information, protection today would probably not be required.

 

[cda]

i guess you all are correct in the uniform code it would be a "B" and b's are not sprinkled, unless like stated above if they cannot meet the opeing provisons

 

[FM William Burns]

Update:

7000 s.f. per floor x 3.

Basement has egress.

Meets separation & detection criteria.

Windowless & openless above LOED.

Options given were to open the 2nd floor as applicable or it looks like they will be replacing with an alternative fire extinguishing agent the fire code official can approve.

Thanks for the history and cross references fellas.