Offsets or incentives for Sprinklers?

[mtlogcabin]

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

Agree

But to reduce the 2 hour requirement to 1 hour because sprinklers are required is silly especially if they are supplied by the potable water system that is turned off on every vacant house and even here when the snowbirds head south for the winter.

nothing in the code requires them to be operational 24-7-365 when the home is not occupied.

 

[Vibrato]

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 think you just may have nailed it here. And brudgers- "the offset is that they can get a permit..." HA! Dead on! I love it.

I don't want to get too far off track, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something obvious- Since We're talking Single Family DETACHED dwellings where any non-residential use would be less than 50% of the total area, the IRC would apply. (Over here by the Big Muddy, an IBC R-3 townhouse would be classified as a "Really Tall Duplex") :cheers

Thanks everyone- I feel like you have reinforced my findings here. In the interest of full disclosure- I am not personally opposed to residential sprinklers although I realize there is a cost. I am not necessarily a supporter of requiring them locally mainly due to the PITA it will be to implement. Our local contractors get mad at me every time they lose a foundation because they can't seem to remember to put the deck on before backfilling, let alone provide a complete set of submittals. ("You said the foundation was ok!"- "Yes I did, but I did not give approval for backfilling- these are two seperate things.")

Time will tell if Illinois amends the sprinklers out as some states have, or leaves them in. Either way I will reccomend to my board that we follow our local ICC chapters (ILLOWA) recomendation for the area, which we're still working on, but I think we're leaning towards keeping them in.

Thanks for all the responses, I can see lurking here more often!

 

[fatboy]

Don't lurk! Continue to contribute, the more the merrier!

 

[brudgers]

Agree But to reduce the 2 hour requirement to 1 hour because sprinklers are required is silly especially if they are supplied by the potable water system that is turned off on every vacant house and even here when the snowbirds head south for the winter. nothing in the code requires them to be operational 24-7-365 when the home is not occupied.

Well, that and the fact that 13D sprinklers don't protect structures.

 

[brudgers]

I think you just may have nailed it here. And brudgers- "the offset is that they can get a permit..." HA! Dead on! I love it. I don't want to get too far off track, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something obvious- Since We're talking Single Family DETACHED dwellings where any non-residential use would be less than 50% of the total area, the IRC would apply. (Over here by the Big Muddy, an IBC R-3 townhouse would be classified as a "Really Tall Duplex") :cheers Thanks everyone- I feel like you have reinforced my findings here. In the interest of full disclosure- I am not personally opposed to residential sprinklers although I realize there is a cost. I am not necessarily a supporter of requiring them locally mainly due to the PITA it will be to implement. Our local contractors get mad at me every time they lose a foundation because they can't seem to remember to put the deck on before backfilling, let alone provide a complete set of submittals. ("You said the foundation was ok!"- "Yes I did, but I did not give approval for backfilling- these are two seperate things.") Time will tell if Illinois amends the sprinklers out as some states have, or leaves them in. Either way I will reccomend to my board that we follow our local ICC chapters (ILLOWA) recomendation for the area, which we're still working on, but I think we're leaning towards keeping them in. Thanks for all the responses, I can see lurking here more often!

I'll just throw out my standard response to sprinklers in single family dwellings: You could save an order of magnitude more lives by prohibiting stairs - dwelling falls kill many more times more people than dwelling fires...just look at the national fire statistics.

 

[JBI]

Welcome to the board Vibrato.

There are more offsets in the Building Code for installing sprinklers than you will ever find in the Res Code.

I too am on the RFS fence, so to speak. I live in a rural area with few water districts. Most RFS would require a tank and pump system. While the added expense is relatively small (closer to the 5% cost of construction than 2%), there is a reliability issue with regard to the delivery system. Pumps require power. In a blackout or other power interruption? Public water supplies tend to be more reliable.

 

[mmmarvel]

Worked in a jurisdiction (once) where a builder petitioned to include residential sprinklers in each dwelling (all new homes) and as a trade off, the city allowed for distance between dwellings to be less AND the width of the street to be less. So the 'trade-off' was dwellings closer to each other, more chance of setting your neighbor on fire from your fire AND more difficult to get the fire engine on the street (on street parking was prohibited) in exchange for the dwellings having residential sprinklers.

 

[brudgers]

Worked in a jurisdiction (once) where a builder petitioned to include residential sprinklers in each dwelling (all new homes) and as a trade off, the city allowed for distance between dwellings to be less AND the width of the street to be less. So the 'trade-off' was dwellings closer to each other, more chance of setting your neighbor on fire from your fire AND more difficult to get the fire engine on the street (on street parking was prohibited) in exchange for the dwellings having residential sprinklers.

Fire fighting apparatus should be selected to best serve the community, not vice versa.

 

[Vibrato]

JBI- I agree, lots more in the IBC. FYI- Most average sized homes on a well system can have a sprinkler system that meets the flow/pressure requirement with a 300-400 gallon tank- no elec backup for a pump needed. They only need to run 2 heads for 7 or 10 minutes depending on the size of the house to meet minimum code requirements.

I have found that asking about sprinklers is like asking about religion. The more you try to get reasonable information the more you are subjected to the extreme point of view. Gods a good dood, some of his supporters... not so much.

Kinda the same way with sprinkler pro's and con's. You can't ask about heaven without being lectured about how you're goin to hell.

When I build, I'll put'em in my house, but to require them? yeeesh.

I can't think of anymore abbrev's.

Thanks for the responses everyone!

 

[beach]

In regard to the OP...... in California, one off the trade-offs was to reduce the sideyard setback from 5' to 3' for sprinklered homes, this was at the request of the building industry.....

 

[AegisFPE]

I wish there was an exception in the IRC providing an alternative to sprinklers.

I think reasonable alternatives could include:

• Increased smoke alarm requirements (e.g. enhanced detection technology {such as multi-sensor}) and/or
  
• detection throughout home (e.g. in whatever spaces sprinklers would have been required) and/or
• permanent means of self-rescue from sleeping rooms (e.g. room at grade level, EERO over deck with access to grade, or escape ladder permanently mounted to deploy {such as the P.E.A.R.L.})