• 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.

Offsets or incentives for Sprinklers?

V

Vibrato

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
13
Been lurking here for a while, 1st post though. Great forums!

My Board Chairman has had some fire guys telling him that the inclusion of sprinklers in the code increases the safety factor such that there are other requirements that have been relaxed to help offset the cost. he has asked me to provide a list...

So far I'm not finding much- (2012 IRC) R501.3- allows for the ½ inch gypsum required for fire protection under floor framing for engineered joists to be excepted. (Engineered joists not specifically mentioned)

*R314.5 allows multiple smoke alarms to be “interconnected” through a wireless system of alarms. My guess is that this is a response to the new technology and NOT specific to the inclusion of smoke alarms. Do you agree? (The alarms still are required to have the primary power source from the building electrical system. No change there.)

Since my Code Interpretation and Significant Changes books won't be here for a couple of days, I thought I'd ask here. Thanks for any help!!
 
Allows the reduction from two to one hours for the townhouse separation also.

Welcome to the forum, glad you jumped it!

Where are you at, what codes are you on?

And, get ready, don't be thin skinned, this has been beat to death from all angles.....search "residential fire sprinklers" or combinations of, plenty of topics and opinions.
 
Welcome to the board.

While you may find some equivalencies based upon sprinklers in single family construction, they would not offset the cost of the sprinkler system. Like Fatboy said, lots of good threads on this board regarding residential fire sprinklers. Of course, everyone has their own opinion based upon their personal experience.
 
The major offset would probably be on insurance premiums, and they vary greatly. And are highly unlikely to offset the cost. Fire guys are just giving you the party line.
 
I don't think wireless systems are new since the 2009 IRC had this

R314.2 Smoke detection systems. Household fire alarm systems installed in accordance with NFPA 72 that include smoke alarms...

and NFPA 2007 allowed low-power wireless household alarm systems.
 
I'm the BO for Rock Island County, Illinois, we're on the 09's.

I don't want to argue the positive/negatives- SHEESH, Doods- that's been done EVERY WHERE and most of what gets mentioned is so exagerated the truth is buried in unreasonableness. (Actual conversation- Contractor- "The water supply won't handle all these sprinklers!"- Me- "Uh, there's a fire plug on every street corner. Wonder what those are for if the water supply won't handle a fire?") Aaaanyway...

I'm looking for specific requirements that may have been relaxed PER CODE, with references between the 03/06 IRC (no Sprinklers) to the 09/12 IRC (with Sprinklers) in single family detached dwellings.

My searches so far has only come up with the por-con arguments Ad-Nauseum, and not so much on things that may not be required but were before.
 
I have had insurance people tell me the premium would actually be higher because the reduction for fire insurance would be offset by insurance for accidental water release from the sprinkler system.
 
As far as I know, there have been no items removed/relaxed from the Codes since the inclusion of RFS.

Someone may prove otherwise, but I haven't seen it.

I think the drywall under floor systems was new with the 09's, so that doesn't really count as a "cost saver"

And welcome to THE forum!!

mj
 
Coug Dad said:
I have had insurance people tell me the premium would actually be higher because the reduction for fire insurance would be offset by insurance for accidental water release from the sprinkler system.
Click to expand...
Depends on the carrier.
 
Vibrato said:
I'm the BO for Rock Island County, Illinois, we're on the 09's. I don't want to argue the positive/negatives- SHEESH, Doods- that's been done EVERY WHERE and most of what gets mentioned is so exagerated the truth is buried in unreasonableness. (Actual conversation- Contractor- "The water supply won't handle all these sprinklers!"- Me- "Uh, there's a fire plug on every street corner. Wonder what those are for if the water supply won't handle a fire?") Aaaanyway... I'm looking for specific requirements that may have been relaxed PER CODE, with references between the 03/06 IRC (no Sprinklers) to the 09/12 IRC (with Sprinklers) in single family detached dwellings. My searches so far has only come up with the por-con arguments Ad-Nauseum, and not so much on things that may not be required but were before.
Click to expand...
Well, once they are required, the offset is that you can get a permit.
 
I believe that fatboy is correct and the 2hr rating between townhomes has been dropped to a one hour common wall.
 
Welcome to the forum Vibrato, upon occasion I get up to Moline, and they've only thrown me out once.
 
gbhammer said:
I believe that fatboy is correct and the 2hr rating between townhomes has been dropped to a one hour common wall.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The 2009 allows for a 1 hour common wall without mech and plumb inside the wall whereas the 2006 never allowed a 1 hr "common wall" but two separate 1 hour common walls. This is well illustrated in the 2006 code commentary.
 
brudgers said:
What is a "townhome?"
Click to expand...
So sorry, "townhouse" "townhome".

Shall we wax philosophical for I have often wondered just what a brudgers is?

This quote from Tacitus says alot.

"Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
 
= =

Vibrato & rnapier,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum! :cool:

One incentive for the RFS is an increased protection of the human resources,

[ i.e. - an increase in the time for Search & Rescue Ops., while inside a

burning structure, or whether or not to enter a burning structure at all ].

We DID have a rather length discussion; and a long rant from me, on RFS.

Sorry, I cannot seem to locate that particular thread right now.....It WAS

on this forum though!.....Maybe one of the other esteemed forum members

can locate it and post a link.

Also, we had a discussion of the transition from the `06 codes to the `09

codes and the effect of "new" sprinkler requirements, awhile back....See

this link:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5477-Transitioning-from-IBC-2006-to-IBC-2009&highlight=residential+fire+sprinklers

= =
 
2009 IRC

Exception: A common 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 34 through 43. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4.

2006 IRC

Exception: A common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 33 through 42. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R317.3.

http://www.biaw.com/documents/09%20Matrix.pdf

The code now recognizes UL263 as an equivalent teststandard to ASTM E 119 forfire-resistance. A common 1hour fire resistance rated wallsatisfies the townhouse

​
separation requirements.

 
north star said:
= =Vibrato & rnapier,

Also, we had a discussion of the transition from the `06 codes to the `09

codes and the effect of "new" sprinkler requirements, awhile back....See

this link:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5477-Transitioning-from-IBC-2006-to-IBC-2009&highlight=residential+fire+sprinklers

= =
Click to expand...
IRC? That link looks like a VERY NICE discussion of the IBC, and I love reading those types of threads because it can take days worth of research and knock it down to the really good stuff quickly- so I've bookmarked it for later perusal- but I didn't see much on the IRC... Is there a different thread?
 
= =

Vibrato,

From the `09 IRC:

R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code

for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction,

alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment,

use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached

one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three

stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of

egress and their accessory structures.

Exception: Live/work units complying with the requirements of

Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted

to be built as one-and two-family dwellings or townhouses.

Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the International

Building Code, when constructed under the International

Residential Code for One-and Two-family Dwellings, shall

conform to Section 903.3.1.3 of the International Building Code.

= =
 
Welcome!

My Board Chairman has had some fire guys telling him that the inclusion of sprinklers in the code increases the safety factor such that there are other requirements that have been relaxed to help offset the cost.
Click to expand...
IMO, the fire guys in question have it backwards. The "other requirements" have been slowly relaxed over the course of the last couple/few decades, and it's RFS that is increasing the safety factor to where it used to be. Examples include allowance for the use of lightweight engineered construction components; modern architectural features such as open floor plans, vaulted ceilings, etc.; and modern synthetic materials from cabinetry and appliances to finish materials and furnishings. It is no secret that flashover is occuring and structures are failing much more quickly than in the past.

I can't think of trade-offs that would come anywhere near off-setting the cost of sprinkler installation.

I assume you've already heard all the arguments for and against, but I suspect that won't keep them from being repeated here. Cue forensics and incognito!
 
gbhammer said:
So sorry, "townhouse" "townhome". Shall we wax philosophical for I have often wondered just what a brudgers is? This quote from Tacitus says alot. "Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
Click to expand...
The difference between a townhouse [typically R3] and a townhome [typically R2] is pretty significant. It's like the difference between 13D and 13R.
 
mtlogcabin said:
2009 IRC Exception: A common 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 34 through 43. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4. 2006 IRC Exception: A common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 33 through 42. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R317.3. http://www.biaw.com/documents/09%20Matrix.pdf
The code now recognizes UL263 as an equivalent teststandard to ASTM E 119 forfire-resistance. A common 1hour fire resistance rated wallsatisfies the townhouse

​
separation requirements.
Click to expand...
The cost difference between a properly constructed 1 hour common wall and a properly constructed 2 hour common wall is likely to be negligible compared to the cost of sprinklers. pennies v dollars
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top