Magic Loophole that Justifies Omitting Fire Sprinklers?

[classicT]

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.

Typically this type of building will have a Fire Protection Engineer (FPE) who will model smoke and fire. Alternate systems can be used.

As an example, the AHJ that I am with, has an incredibly large freezer that utilized a reduced oxygen environment in-place of sprinklers.

 

[steveray]

Magnesium places hate sprinklers too....

 

[TheCommish]

The ICC has a code Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities. that can be used as an alternative method of protecting buildings and occupants, it is a bit of a process, that weights goals, functional objectives, performance criteria, verification methods, and acceptable solutions. this method could be used for large high spaces, possibly generation plants.

It has companion documents in the NFPA and Society of Fire Protection Engineers.

Using it is a detailed process with modeling of fire and people's behavior in structures to achieve the goals, risks, and costs the stakeholders are willing to accept and maintain.

 

[Enri Code]

Typically this type of building will have a Fire Protection Engineer (FPE) who will model smoke and fire. Alternate systems can be used.

As an example, the AHJ that I am with, has an incredibly large freezer that utilized a reduced oxygen environment in-place of sprinklers.

I am familiar with hypoxic systems or ORS (Oxygen Reduction Systems). Had experienced using it on a high bay automated storage system. I can see how it make sense in a large freezer where water is not ideal. For it to use ORS, I am assuming it is a fully automated operation because it would need to be otherwise unoccupied hence I see how it can slide into the special industrial occupancy classification.

For the freezer warehouses I've been involved in which had people operated forklifts, we just used a pre-action dry system.

Overall, it goes to show how there is space for alternate to fire sprinklers but of course it needs to be justified and ideally worked on by an FPE with the AHJ as you had illustrated.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Enri Code]

Magnesium places hate sprinklers too....

Those water reactive elements are tricky for sure. That's why sometimes the answer is not "just sprinkler" because that's what the code says. There are nuances and the code does offer room for alternatives to fire sprinklers in recognition of different scenarios.

This is why I had some issues just blindly accepting responses that totally discount alternatives and appreciated responses that delved more into reasons on why the alternative may not be acceptable.

 

[Enri Code]

The ICC has a code Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities. that can be used as an alternative method of protecting buildings and occupants, it is a bit of a process, that weights goals, functional objectives, performance criteria, verification methods, and acceptable solutions. this method could be used for large high spaces, possibly generation plants.

It has companion documents in the NFPA and Society of Fire Protection Engineers.

Using it is a detailed process with modeling of fire and people's behavior in structures to achieve the goals, risks, and costs the stakeholders are willing to accept and maintain.



View attachment 6613

Thanks for the reference.

I do find that the NFPA tend to delve deeper into specific issues and tend to define things into more details.
It's funny then that I often encounter the question from people: "So what do we follow? IBC or NFPA? Building official or fire marshal?"

I see them as complementary to each other. But yes, there may be times when they may conflict or one may address something that the other doesn't.

When in doubt use the more restrictive then? In practice though, I do see how people lean on the IBC more by default and only ever touch on NFPA if something comes up with the fire marshal.

 

[Enri Code]

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.

This is very true about the dilemma of having great ceiling heights and having an effective sprinkler.
We would usually go deluge or mist if applicable. In-rack if there are storage racks (high pile storage provisions...).

Definitely, depending on what's going on inside or what's in it, an alternative is appropriate... even one that's not a sprinkler.

For example, for a large garage or aircraft hangers with fuel, if may be a foam.

 

[mtlogcabin]

We just did a 24,000 sq ft fertilizer storage building all wood no fire suppression system at all. 300 feet clear space around the entire building and if it catches fire the fire department will stand by and watch it burn as adding water will be a pollution nightmare. Owners are a large corporation that are self insured and the loss of the building and product is minuscule in relation to the environmental cleanup cost if water is added to the fertilizers.

 

[cda]

Thanks for the reference.

I do find that the NFPA tend to delve deeper into specific issues and tend to define things into more details.
It's funny then that I often encounter the question from people: "So what do we follow? IBC or NFPA? Building official or fire marshal?"

I see them as complementary to each other. But yes, there may be times when they may conflict or one may address something that the other doesn't.

When in doubt use the more restrictive then? In practice though, I do see how people lean on the IBC more by default and only ever touch on NFPA if something comes up with the fire marshal.

Normally the ahj is only allowed to enforce what codes/ standards are adopted.

The i codes allow other codes to be used, as approved by ahj

 

[cda]

We just did a 24,000 sq ft fertilizer storage building all wood no fire suppression system at all. 300 feet clear space around the entire building and if it catches fire the fire department will stand by and watch it burn as adding water will be a pollution nightmare. Owners are a large corporation that are self insured and the loss of the building and product is minuscule in relation to the environmental cleanup cost if water is added to the fertilizers.

Guess it is not miracle grow, otherwise the runoff would make greener grass and very large tomatoes.


I thought you were going a different way,,, one owner said,,, insurance is cheaper, than the fire protection you want me to install.

 

[Enri Code]

Guess it is not miracle grow, otherwise the runoff would make greener grass and very large tomatoes.


I thought you were going a different way,,, one owner said,,, insurance is cheaper, than the fire protection you want me to install.

We just did a 24,000 sq ft fertilizer storage building all wood no fire suppression system at all. 300 feet clear space around the entire building and if it catches fire the fire department will stand by and watch it burn as adding water will be a pollution nightmare. Owners are a large corporation that are self insured and the loss of the building and product is minuscule in relation to the environmental cleanup cost if water is added to the fertilizers.

Well it happens more than people think. Sometimes the fire sprinkler cost or the maintenance for one isn't something the owner, developer on construction people are keen on spending on. In some cases, it's just all about minimizing the loss by compartmentalizing the bigger area into smaller fire zones with fire walls - not necessarily required by code - which are more known as MFL walls or "Maximum Foreseeable Loss" walls... where they take the chance that the building will burn but controlling how much goods will be potentially lost so that it squares with insurance or risk tolerance of the company.

Environmental concern... also very valid.

 

[Enri Code]

Normally the ahj is only allowed to enforce what codes/ standards are adopted.

The i codes allow other codes to be used, as approved by ahj

Who the AHJ are also wildy varies sometimes depending on where a project is. I've had projects where the AHJ is outsourced, or not really a building official, or solely the fire marshal, or even the owner themselves and what they say goes!