Magic Loophole that Justifies Omitting Fire Sprinklers?

[Enri Code]

Yeah, no. You are treating this section like it overrules other sections requiring sprinklers, but what you posted just says it requires sprinklers in some buildings that otherwise don't require sprinklers.

Any thoughts on the other parts of my message?

Any thoughts about the argument that if not providing openings require sprinklers then having the openings then mean we can do without the sprinklers?

Have you seen the diagram I posted from the official IBC code and commentary by ICC showing that such a configuration does not require automatic sprinklers? (I'm posting it here again for you).

Thoughts? Thank you.

 

[Enri Code]

Typically, unless the code sections reference one another (usually through a notwithstanding clause), you need to comply with both.

Think about it like this:

506.2 No Sprinklers, 903.2.11 No Sprinklers = No Sprinklers Required
506.2 Requires Sprinklers, 903.2.11 Requires Sprinklers = Sprinklers Required
506.2 No Sprinklers, 903.2.11 Requires Sprinklers = Sprinklers Required
506.2 Requires Sprinklers, 903.2.11 No Sprinklers = Sprinklers Required

Definitely agree with going with more stringent path but not sure this is the clear case here. This feels more like:

506.2 Requires Sprinklers, 903.2.11 Requires Sprinklers (but alternative to sprinkler is allowed which are openings every 50 feet) = Sprinklers Required... but can be switched to openings every 50 feet????

The alternative - which is stated in an ICC commentary - is being ignored.

If I am to understand correctly, we should choose to ignore alternates to active fire protection in general because active fire protection should always be treated as more stringent than passive fire protection?

 

[cda]

Any thoughts on the other parts of my message?

Any thoughts about the argument that if not providing openings require sprinklers then having the openings then mean we can do without the sprinklers?

Have you seen the diagram I posted from the official IBC code and commentary by ICC showing that such a configuration does not require automatic sprinklers? (I'm posting it here again for you).

Thoughts? Thank you.

View attachment 6610

Yes i have seen the diagram,, It has been code for YEARS.

You do not seem to get this section:::

102.10 Conflicting Provisions

Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in a specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.


Plus this section

F-1 requires sprinklers over 12000 sq ft


And this is the example you are trying to say does not require fire sprinklers::


Given these parameters:
- 200 ft. x 200 ft. (40,000sf area)
- Type 2B construction (pre-engineered metal building)
- F-1 occupancy building
- 30 feet tall (single story)




GO ahead and present it to an AHJ, sounds like you are on the design side, along with your opening proposal,,,,,

If the AHJ has a 1/4 code knowledge, hopefully they are Professional and do not laugh in your face.

 

[Enri Code]

Sorry

That is like saying

I am going to build a booze serving night club.

50000 sq ft

And an occupant load of 10000 people

AS LONG as I provide required openings,,,

I don’t have to install a fire sprinkler system

Very Wrong code application

Definitely wrong application and dangerous to boot but a potential loophole is a loophole.

Similar to how a disturbing number of schools - lots of assembly spaces - have not sprinklers in this country.

How do most school's get out of this... openings... windows specifically...

Should this disturb us, hell yes. But is this being allowed... the fact that there are schools without sprinklers... what do you think?

I digress though.

This is why I really want to understand this deeply knowing the possible stakes.

Thanks.

 

[Enri Code]

Yes i have seen the diagram,, It has been code for YEARS.

You do not seem to get this section:::

102.10 Conflicting Provisions

Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in a specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.


Plus this section

F-1 requires sprinklers over 12000 sq ft


And this is the example you are trying to say does not require fire sprinklers::


Given these parameters:
- 200 ft. x 200 ft. (40,000sf area)
- Type 2B construction (pre-engineered metal building)
- F-1 occupancy building
- 30 feet tall (single story)




GO ahead and present it to an AHJ, sounds like you are on the design side, along with your opening proposal,,,,,

If the AHJ has a 1/4 code knowledge, hopefully they are Professional and do not laugh in your face.

If this was an F-2.
Same thoughts?

Just to be clear. You seem to be ignoring that I actually said from my very first post that it does require a sprinkler, even mentioned why and I am presenting what I was told was an alternate to sprinklers.

Your mind is definitely already set and what I may say next may blow your mind:

There had been projects in the past that were presented this way and were accepted by AHJ. Mostly in the power industry.

So yes, outside of your knowledge and experience, this had been accepted before for years.

 

[e hilton]

How am I connected to this?: professional skeptic in pursuit of knowledge
What do I do for a paycheck?: whatever it takes. LOL..​

Ok, here’s my 2 cents. I’m on the construction side, not the enforcement side. I’m seeing you as a troll, stirring the pot to see what kind of a reaction you can get. Apparently you don’t have a vested interest in the situation you describe, you’re enjoying seeing your name in print.
I could be wrong, I was wrong once, but it was a tuesday ...​

 

[cda]

If this was an F-2.
Same thoughts?

Just to be clear. You seem to be ignoring that I actually said from my very first post that it does require a sprinkler, even mentioned why and I am presenting what I was told was an alternate to sprinklers.

Your mind is definitely already set and what I may say next may blow your mind:

There had been projects in the past that were presented this way and were accepted by AHJ. Mostly in the power industry.

So yes, outside of your knowledge and experience, this had been accepted before for years.

My mind is not set

If someone provides a code provision proving up there project, I have no problem.

When a design is submitted and they cherry pick the code book, and not design to the entire code book,,,, that is when I pick the book up and throw it at them.

No in 30 years I have not seen the opening code used like that or even proposed like that.

As I say if you can get the ahj to let it fly, more power to you, my name is not on it and I will not be live at five.

 

[Enri Code]

Ok, here’s my 2 cents. I’m on the construction side, not the enforcement side. I’m seeing you as a troll, stirring the pot to see what kind of a reaction you can get. Apparently you don’t have a vested interest in the situation you describe, you’re enjoying seeing your name in print.
I could be wrong, I was wrong once, but it was a tuesday ...​

Yes, you are wrong.

If you actually have an opinion on the topic, I'd appreciate it.

If being a troll means stirring the pot to see what kind of reaction you can get... what's the point of you calling me a troll and accusing me of not having a vested interest in the situation and just enjoying to see my name in print?

Nice how you just jumped in to have your name shown here and give your 2 cents.

Thank you.

 

[Enri Code]

My mind is not set

If someone provides a code provision proving up there project, I have no problem.

When a design is submitted and they cherry pick the code book, and not design to the entire code book,,,, that is when I pick the book up and throw it at them.

No in 30 years I have not seen the opening code used like that or even proposed like that.

As I say if you can get the ahj to let it fly, more power to you, my name is not on it and I will not be live at five.

cda, thank you for all your input.

Apologies for implying that your mind is already closed on this. Poorly chosen words. Hard to gauge someone from text alone and you were pretty strong in your answers. My bad as I am new here. I now recognize it as passion and I appreciate it.

I am the same, if someone provides information that must lead me to change my position, I need to respect that. This is the reason why I am here as I had mentioned earlier.

To be honest, I had already written a stern letter a couple of weeks back to my team basically poopooing the interpretation and they were actually for reasons very much the same as you have stated.

It reared its ugly head again this week though which prompted me to offer it up here for discussion. I feel strongly that my position - which is same as yours - is correct but I tried my best to see it from the other side to really wrap my head around it and as I said... opened myself to be swayed one way or the other based on the strength of arguments.

I am an architect by profession so yes, your wisdom holds true... I do have a design background - but am now in management but do get involved in engineering and construction as needed and interface with building code officials.

I'm not involved in the project directly but am vested in always improving my team.

To cut to the chase, even as I played devil's advocate, looks like the majority here has overwhelmingly supported my personal belief that this is a "loophole" best kept closed... actually not to be considered at all.

I really appreciate all the constructive and informative inputs. I am a bit shocked about some of the ad hominems by some but then again this is the internet and I really shouldn't be surprised should I?

Thank you.

 

[cda]

Well a lot of us have been on this forum along time.

Yes we do throw mud at each other every so often,,

But we do it nicely and respect others opinions.

Anyway come on back, we will not block you.

 

[e hilton]

Nice how you just jumped in to have your name shown here and give your 2 cents.

You’re welcome.
What helps form my opinion is you have been given several credible responses the point out why you’re wrong, and like a petulant child you keep ignoring them and coming back with sophomoric responses. Now that you have said you are an architect ... i see oart of the problem. “It works on paper”.

 

[ICE]

903.2.11.1 Stories without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet (139.4 m2) and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings:

So if a building has a floor area greater than 1500 square feet it shall be sprinkled. ...And any story of any building of any square footage that does not comply with the 20 sq.ft. opening in every 50' shall also be equipped with a sprinkler system. It's hard to know if that makes any sense...but it reads that way easy enough.

It seems counter intuitive to ventilate a fire through a bunch of doors unless you're intent on collecting insurance. The idea behind sprinklers is to beat down the fire before the fire dept rolls.

I haven't read all of the posts so forgive me if I ask an answered question. Have you asked the local departments?

I noticed that the opening shall be unobstructed. The openings are expressly stated as being for the fire dept. So it's definitely a door that they can count on getting through in under a minute. But here again the purpose is for rescue....because the sprinklers did the bulk of the work.

903.2.11.1.1 Opening dimensions and access.

Openings shall have a minimum dimension of not less than 30 inches (762 mm). Access to such openings shall be provided for the fire department from the exterior and shall not be obstructed in a manner such that fire fighting or rescue cannot be accomplished from the exterior.

 

[Enri Code]

You’re welcome.
What helps form my opinion is you have been given several credible responses the point out why you’re wrong, and like a petulant child you keep ignoring them and coming back with sophomoric responses. Now that you have said you are an architect ... i see oart of the problem. “It works on paper”.

When you're in a better mood, I invite you to actually read my responses. May come off different... maybe not.

I've actually spent a great deal of time on the field. Actually mixed concrete down to sweeping trailer floors. Got a lot of respect for people on the construction side because I've lived it.

I'm pretty bummed that you seem to have bought into the whole design vs construction rhetoric. I found that things work better when both side respect what each other do.

Then again, to be honest, I probably have a bunch of construction jokes myself and the bashing on each side can be comedy gold.

Nature of the business... LOL.

Be well.

 

[Enri Code]

903.2.11.1 Stories without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet (139.4 m2) and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings:

So if a building has a floor area greater than 1500 square feet it shall be sprinkled. ...And any story of any building of any square footage that does not comply with the 20 sq.ft. opening in every 50' shall also be equipped with a sprinkler system. It's hard to know if that makes any sense...but it reads that way easy enough.

It seems counter intuitive to ventilate a fire through a bunch of doors unless you're intent on collecting insurance. The idea behind sprinklers is to beat down the fire before the fire dept rolls.

Yes, very counterintuitive indeed. One of the arguments I used against this was that the building will truly be dependent on the local fire fighters' response time and to some degree the employees themselves. Basically, an overall downgrade and riskier.

The construction side put a lot more value into cost savings versus expense for a sprinkler so you can see why attention was given towards this. I know... shocking.

Good that you put up the text to the section but you left out the troublesome criteria. I've posted it on a separate post for clarity's sake.

 

[Enri Code]

For the curious, here's the whole thing with the criteria included:

903.2.11.1 Stories without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings:

1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground level by an exterior stairway complying with Section 1011 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1012. Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet.

2. Openings entirely above the adjoining ground level totaling not less than 20 square feet in each 50 linear feet, or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet. The height of the bottom of the clear opening shall not exceed 44 inches measured from the floor.

So the argument as presented to me was that if we then do comply with criteria #2, then we don't need to install the automatic fire sprinkler.

This was the logic hell I had to deal with...

 

[cda]

For the curious, here's the whole thing with the criteria included:

903.2.11.1 Stories without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings:

1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground level by an exterior stairway complying with Section 1011 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1012. Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet.

2. Openings entirely above the adjoining ground level totaling not less than 20 square feet in each 50 linear feet, or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet. The height of the bottom of the clear opening shall not exceed 44 inches measured from the floor.

So the argument as presented to me was that if we then do comply with criteria #2, then we don't need to install the automatic fire sprinkler.

This was the logic hell I had to deal with...

They need to learn,,,

You have to read and apply the entire code book.

 

[tmurray]

For the curious, here's the whole thing with the criteria included:

903.2.11.1 Stories without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings:

1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground level by an exterior stairway complying with Section 1011 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1012. Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet.

2. Openings entirely above the adjoining ground level totaling not less than 20 square feet in each 50 linear feet, or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet. The height of the bottom of the clear opening shall not exceed 44 inches measured from the floor.

So the argument as presented to me was that if we then do comply with criteria #2, then we don't need to install the automatic fire sprinkler.

This was the logic hell I had to deal with...

For it to link back to 506.2 the way you are suggesting, it would need to say:

"Notwithstanding 506.2, Stories without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings..."

Like my previous post said, 506.2 may require sprinklers in isolation. 903.2 may require sprinklers in isolation. There is no interaction between these two sections. As CDA has pointed out multiple times, most restrictive applies.

It is not mental gymnastics. It is not a loophole. You are misinterpreting the code.

 

[Paul Sweet]

903.2.11.1 requires sprinklers in many cases where 506.2 doesn't. The exception in 903.2.11.1.2 applies to those instances only. It does NOT override 506.2.

If I remember correctly from long ago, the reason for the 75 ft. limit and the exception for openings on 2 sides was so the fire could be fought from outside the building.

 

[classicT]

Now that this post has settled down...

I am going to throw my voice in with those of sound judgement and state that the requirements of 506.2 are not overridden by 903.2.11.1.2. If that were the case, 506.2 would include a footnote referencing 903.2.11.1.2.

Building must meet the size limitations of 506.2 first and foremost. Ch. 9 provide additional requirements where required given a particular use.


This is not a loop-hole. This is a total misconception and demonstrates a lack of basic code understanding, and in my opinion, shows disrespect to ones own profession.

 

[cda]

I think he was trying to argue someone else’s point of view.

Not what he believes the code to be.

 

[Enri Code]

I think he was trying to argue someone else’s point of view.

Not what he believes the code to be.

Exactly.

 

[Enri Code]

Now that this post has settled down...

I am going to throw my voice in with those of sound judgement and state that the requirements of 506.2 are not overridden by 903.2.11.1.2. If that were the case, 506.2 would include a footnote referencing 903.2.11.1.2.

Building must meet the size limitations of 506.2 first and foremost. Ch. 9 provide additional requirements where required given a particular use.


This is not a loop-hole. This is a total misconception and demonstrates a lack of basic code understanding, and in my opinion, shows disrespect to ones own profession.

Good reasoning about 903.2.11.1.2 not being in the footnote of 506.2 and shall we say vice versa. That's a good argument.

 

[Enri Code]

Here's a curve ball:

For people that missed out on my sharing that I was told that Section 903.2.11.1.2 had been used successfully in projects for power plants... I had asked for more information on that.

It was mentioned that some industrial projects (F occupancies) are Special Purpose Industrial Occupancies... such as power plants.

The provision being that they are exempt from the area or height limitations of Table 506.2.

In fact, some would say they can then totally ignore Table 506.2 in its entirety.

I'm not certain that it can be in fact ignored in total. Wouldn't it just mean that there is no height or area limitation but thresholds for needing fire sprinklers should still apply?

I am being told different. That Table 506.2 should be totally ignored if it is a Special Purpose Industrial Occupancy.

Then... this opens the door to Section 903.2.11.1.2 without any area limitations...

Not sure if this necessitates another thread but this is an interesting take that I'm not certain of.

 

[cda]

Not into special purpose

I think I have seen a couple before they got labeled that.

For sprinklers I would say depends on what is going on in the building.

There is always the argument that sprinklers so far off the ground would more than likely never activate,,,, propose an alternative.


One I remember, not sure how high, but high,
There was a conveyor system for metal car bodies, and that was it.
Been to long, but I think they did heats or beams.