• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

NFPA 13 + Attached Trellis

G

Gogo707

REGISTERED
Joined
Jul 15, 2022
Messages
15
Location
North Carolina
Hi all,

Currently working on a project with an exterior projection (over 4') to a building that is designed as a trellis. The structural columns are steel but the trellis/pergola roof is non-treated, combustible wood. No combustibles are stored underneath, and the roof is 74% open.

Does this design require sprinklers? We are thinking they may be omitted due to the opening. However, if not, it sounds like we can have them omitted if the wood is treated with fire retardant. Currently looking in NFPA 13 9.3.19.1.

Thanks in advance!
 
It is a combustible overhang needs to be sprinkled, use approved sprinkler hoods to achieve heat retention for sprinkler activation. The issue to consider is the combustible overhang cextendig the fire to the attached structure.
 
Do you have a reference or even up to date link to fire sprinkler heat collectors? I thought they had fallen out of favor. The discussion here https://www.meyerfire.com/daily/effectiveness-of-sprinklers-not-under-a-surface states they are no longer in NFPA 13.

I've researched fires in stages, which often have an open grate walking surface. I'm actual tired, the sprinklers with heat collectors under the walking surface never fused.
 
bill1952 said:
I agree but does it become a roof when a vine is there an a foot of snow is held up by it?
Click to expand...
I would say no as well. There is a balance between actual use and potential use that must be struck.

Recently a building owner installed a vehicular access ramp and door into a building without a permit. The interior geometry permitted a vehicle to be parked inside. The local building official properly classified it as a vehicle storage garage. The owner appealed the decision on the grounds that a storage garage is not the intended use of the building.

The building official's classification was upheld because it was not just the intended use, but also the potential use that must be considered. Now if one of the three elements were eliminated (ramp, door, or area inside), the building official would have to change their classification. Ultimately, it is flawed to regulate based on what may happen, particularly based on an owner/occupier's actions. We are better served to regulate based on the relative permanence of the construction.

I see this as similar. Is it possible that vines might grow on it? Yes. Is it possible that snow might sit on top of it? Well, may be not in Sacramento (OP's location), but it is possible. The question is, is the use likely based on the constructed elements of the building? I don't think we can say it is in this case.
 
tmurray said:
Recently a building owner installed a vehicular access ramp and door into a building without a permit. The interior geometry permitted a vehicle to be parked inside. The local building official properly classified it as a vehicle storage garage. The owner appealed the decision on the grounds that a storage garage is not the intended use of the building.
Click to expand...
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you will do something and I draw the line somewhere short of this....I parked my Korean war jeep on a back porch for a couple winters....I don't make every porch be constructed as a carport....
 
If this was a balcony, then most likely a sprinkler would be required if combustibles are being used to construct it IMO.
 
bill1952 said:
tmurray and steveray - I agree and applaud your reasonableness. I hate when a more restrictive requirement is applied because of what could happen.
Click to expand...
Code is supposed to be a tool to improve our lives, not a hammer to punish those I dislike.

I think people get into trouble when they see themselves as guardians against lawlessness. That is not who we are. We work to ensure the rules we have agreed to as a society through a democratic process are enforced. If a regulator is not humbled by the trust placed in them by society, I question their motives.
 
steveray said:
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you will do something and I draw the line somewhere short of this....I parked my Korean war jeep on a back porch for a couple winters....I don't make every porch be constructed as a carport....
Click to expand...
True. To be fair, the building official had a photo of a vehicle parked in the building. Also, I questioned why the building owner would claim that a vehicle will not be in the space when they replaced two smaller doors with a vehicular door and built a ramp where there wasn't one before.

Basically, the construction they undertook did not provide access, it changed the classification of access provided. It would be illogical for the owner to undertake these renovations when there would be no other conceivable benefit than to pull a vehicle into the space.
 
tmurray said:
True. To be fair, the building official had a photo of a vehicle parked in the building.
Click to expand...
Photographic evidence does have a way of changing things...I would still question it in that I drove a truck and trailer through a beer store in PA (awesome)....But I wouldn't call it a garage...
 
tmurray said:
Code is supposed to be a tool to improve our lives, not a hammer to punish those I dislike.

I think people get into trouble when they see themselves as guardians against lawlessness. That is not who we are. We work to ensure the rules we have agreed to as a society through a democratic process are enforced. If a regulator is not humbled by the trust placed in them by society, I question their motives.
Click to expand...

Sometimes we don't set out to be "guardians against lawlessness." Sometimes it just happens.

I reviewed plans for an addition to an addition to an existing HVAC contractor's facility. As usual, no site plan, so I fired up Google Maps to get a sense of what I was dealing with. The occupancy for the addition and for the existing warehouse was declared as S-2.

So I find the building in Google Maps. That gives me an idea of location and what's surrounding it. Then I jumped to street view, and what to me wondering eyes did I see? The big overhead doors was open, and there were trucks clearly visible inside the building. Called the owner and asked if he parks trucks in the building overnight. "Yes, of course."

Oh, oh. So now it's an S-1, not an S-2, and even without the proposed addition it's far larger than the 5,000 s,f, allowed for parking commercial vehicles without sprinklers -- and, of course, it's not sprinklered.
 
TheCommish said:
Watch the definition of commercial vehicle over 10,000gvw
Click to expand...

Yes, we're aware of that. And it's not 10,000 pounds GVW -- it's 10,000 pounds GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating). So even if his truck may only weigh in at 8,700 pounds as he runs them, if they are rated by the manufacturer for over 10,000 pounds -- they're commercial vehicles.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Sometimes we don't set out to be "guardians against lawlessness." Sometimes it just happens.
Click to expand...
100% agree. But I think the difference is clearly mentioned in your post is that some of us set out to be that and some do that when the situations dictates it. Fundamental difference in mentalities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top