• 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

No sprinklers in the garage

R

retire09

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
365
Location
Alaska
NFPA 13D and the 2009IRC both exempt garages from sprinkler requirements. Even with gas appliances in an attached garage, no sprinkler protection appears to be required. What is the logic behind this?

Should this be amended in individual jurisdictions to require protection?
 
Why do you think the garage needs to be sprinklered?

Do you think a 13D system would be effective in a residential garage fire?
 
NFPA 13D is for life safety of the dwelling unit occupants. The garage has required construction separation to the dwelling unit. Sprinklers would not significantly add to the protection of the dwelling unit occupants. On a practical note, garages freeze and would reqiure dry or antifreeze systems.
 
I was told that with the separation already required between home and garage the powers to be felt it wasn't needed. Plus most garages are not heated and the expense for a separate dry system would be too costly.

docgj
 
With the code changes that reduced the separation from 5/8s to 1/2" and dropped the self closing and tight fitting requirements of the door I don't see much reliable separation. Here in Alaska our attached garages are heated with gas unit heaters and contain boilers, water heaters, washers, dryers, cars, 4 wheelers, snow machines

chain saws, snow blowers, extra fuel and you name it. I think I would rather have this protected than a closet over 24sf or a bathroom over 55sf.
 
If it backs up to the house you could use a dry Sidewall that is in the main house wall, so it gives better freeze protection to the pipe
 
With the code changes that reduced the separation from 5/8s to 1/2" and dropped the self closing and tight fitting requirements of the door I don't see much reliable separation
Click to expand...
Probably easier to get that back into your code.

BTW 5/8s and self closing tight fitting codes where not required in all legacy codes
 
CA amendments to the IRC (CRC) only exempts detached garages from the sprinkler requirement. Attached garage will require sprinklers.

R313.3.1.1 Required sprinkler locations. Sprinklers

shall be installed to protect all areas of a dwelling unit.

Exceptions:

4. Detached garages; carports with no habitable

space above; open attached porches; unheated

entry areas, such as mud rooms, that are adjacent

to an exterior door; and similar areas.
 
Coug Dad has it spot on. Intended for occupant escape ONLY. I would not be concerned unless the Garage was abutted to a sleeping area. In that event (in my world) I may want 1 hr and 45 min opening protection oh yea that was whored out.
 
Interesting questions; but I don't think a garage meets either the intent or would fall under "similar areas", one is for people transiting from the house to the exterior and the other is for the parking of vehicles.

Websters

Definition of GARAGE

1: a shelter or repair shop for automotive vehicles
 
With regard to similar areas, we could also look to examples in the commercial building code:

311.3 Low-Hazard Storage: Parking Garage (open or enclosed)

311.2 Moderate-Hazard Storage: Boots and shoes

If the intent is to protect occupants from fire with automatic sprinkler protection, and recognizing the sprinkler protection is challenging in unheated spaces (there have been plenty of instances of pipe failures even where dry heads are installed), and recognizing that occupants in a room with immediate exterior access could readily escape, I don't see a big difference between a mud room and a carport or a garage.

If the intent is to protect sleeping occupants and the concern is repair of vehicles in the garage (since parked vehicles are low-hazard) - I can say that I know some good mechanics, but none can perform work in their sleep. Therefore, if the higher hazard activity occurs while an occupant would be readily aware of a developing fire event, again I see no excessive hazard to the occupants, and would suggest we look to statistical data.

The table of Fires and Associated Deaths and Injuries in the NFPA 13R/D identifies that more fires, more deaths, and more injuries originate in bathrooms than in garages. Yet even so, some bathrooms do not require protection.

Based on this information, it would make more statistical sense, and pose a lesser cost impact (and reduced failure potential in climates subject to freezing), to sprinkler every bathroom rather than garages. I am not suggesting that every bathroom should be sprinklered, but if we're going to deviate from the NFPA standard, let's start in the dwelling space and address the highest remaining hazard areas first!

I think the extension of a sprinkler mandate to garages attached to IRC dwelling units may stem from a "more is better" philosophy, though it may be a case of more regulation is more wasteful.

Alternatively, perhaps the absence of prescribing protection in attached garages is deliberate, allowing the AHJ in each jurisdiction to make their own judgment.
 
We don't pay enough attention to the dangers of having an attached garage. We continue to store dangerous things out there (well, like cars, etc) without a full real fire wall required.. even if the main house is sprinklered, the fire needs to get to the main house before the sprinkler heads go off.. may not be enough time for the occupants to get out. Depending on where the garage is (like if there's habitable space above), part of the house can be fully engulfed before the smoke detectors even know.

My two cents.
 
There has been misinformation for years on garage fires. If you look at the residential fire statistics you will see that most residential fires start “in” the residence not in the garage. That’s one reason the gyp. Bd. Requirement is now ½ inch. The facts don’t warrant the requirement of fire sprinklers.

I do believe is a great investment, $1,000, for a two car garage, saving your family, a balanced approach

In the pdf search, type in "garage", and you will see that less than five percent of fires "reported" are garage related.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/Residential_Structure_and_Building_Fires.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RETIRE09 said

"NFPA 13D and the 2009IRC both exempt garages from sprinkler requirements. Even with gas appliances in an attached garage, no sprinkler protection appears to be required."

NFPA 13D 8.6.5 requires any area that contains fuel-fired equipment to have a sprinkler protecting the equipment

Most garages can be covered with two heads or about $300

We offer the garage for free if the homeowner will commit to the system in their new home

We are very concerned with the popularity of the golf carts and the charging equipment so we just throw int he garage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top