I have an assisted living facility, I-1, 2006 IBC, type VA. We have designed the covered walkways outside the building and the porte cochere so that they do not attach to the building (free standing). Do we need to protect the steel 1-hour supporting the roof per Table 601? Do they need to be sprinklered?
-
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.
Porte Cochere and Covered Walkways
- Thread starter ArchATL
- Start date
My favorite subject with my boss
I say sprinkle them all
My boss says if they are not connected no
But he has no separation distance, so it could be six inch separation and no sprinklers
That is why I say sprinkle them all
Do not know about steel protection
Have you asked the ahj thier policy to sprinkle???
I say sprinkle them all
My boss says if they are not connected no
But he has no separation distance, so it could be six inch separation and no sprinklers
That is why I say sprinkle them all
Do not know about steel protection
Have you asked the ahj thier policy to sprinkle???
Yankee
REGISTERED
I'd say if within 5 feet, then sprinkler them
Dr. J
Silver Member
NFPA 13 is very specific that non-combustible covered walkways and porte-cocheres do not have to be sprinklered.
8.15.7 goes through great pains to exempt non-combustible, limited combustible, or FRTW construction, and keeps on going about how to exempt combustible construction as well.
The part that freaks people out is: 8.15.7.5* Sprinklers shall be installed under roofs, canopies, or porte-cocheres over areas where combustibles are stored and handled.
However the annex notes are quite clear:
A.8.15.7.2 Vehicles that are temporarily parked are not considered storage. Areas located at drive-in bank windows or porte-cocheres at hotels and motels normally do not require sprinklers where there is no occupancy above, where the area is entirely constructed of noncombustible or limited-combustible materials or fire retardant treated lumber, and where the area is not the only means of egress. However, areas under exterior ceilings where the building is sprinklered should be protected due to the occupancy above.
A.8.15.7.5 Short-term transient storage, such as that for delivered packages, and the presence of planters, newspaper machines, and so forth, should not be considered storage or handling of combustibles.
8.15.7.5 is meant for loading docks.
Having said all that, this is one area I always check with the AHJ on, since many use the "because I said so" clause for this. You then need to decide if it is a battle worth fighting. Note that one area I don't argue about is Hospital ambulance entries, since they may see more than the typical temporary parking, and they may be kept running a long time.
8.15.7 goes through great pains to exempt non-combustible, limited combustible, or FRTW construction, and keeps on going about how to exempt combustible construction as well.
The part that freaks people out is: 8.15.7.5* Sprinklers shall be installed under roofs, canopies, or porte-cocheres over areas where combustibles are stored and handled.
However the annex notes are quite clear:
A.8.15.7.2 Vehicles that are temporarily parked are not considered storage. Areas located at drive-in bank windows or porte-cocheres at hotels and motels normally do not require sprinklers where there is no occupancy above, where the area is entirely constructed of noncombustible or limited-combustible materials or fire retardant treated lumber, and where the area is not the only means of egress. However, areas under exterior ceilings where the building is sprinklered should be protected due to the occupancy above.
A.8.15.7.5 Short-term transient storage, such as that for delivered packages, and the presence of planters, newspaper machines, and so forth, should not be considered storage or handling of combustibles.
8.15.7.5 is meant for loading docks.
Having said all that, this is one area I always check with the AHJ on, since many use the "because I said so" clause for this. You then need to decide if it is a battle worth fighting. Note that one area I don't argue about is Hospital ambulance entries, since they may see more than the typical temporary parking, and they may be kept running a long time.
Last edited by a moderator:
vegas paul
Silver Member
If it's part of the exit discharge, then you must sprinkle it. You can not reduce the degree of protection of an exit along the path of egress travel.
Dr. J
Silver Member
All the IBC can require is that a building be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. A sprinklered building with a non-sprinklered Porte Cochere is still a sprinklered building. IBC does not require any sprinklers in addition to those required by NFPA 13.
The Porte Cochere situation is similar to a traction elevator being used as part of an accessible means of egress. It would be fully in compliance with NFPA 13 without sprinklers in the shaft. There is no IBC requirement to sprinkler the hoistway just because it is a component of the egress path. Another example is a high rise stair tower that is NFPA 13 compliant with only two sprinklers. Hundreds of vertical feet of the egress path are not protected by an automatic fire suppression system, but it is still code compliant.
“Because I said so” can take on so many forms.
The Porte Cochere situation is similar to a traction elevator being used as part of an accessible means of egress. It would be fully in compliance with NFPA 13 without sprinklers in the shaft. There is no IBC requirement to sprinkler the hoistway just because it is a component of the egress path. Another example is a high rise stair tower that is NFPA 13 compliant with only two sprinklers. Hundreds of vertical feet of the egress path are not protected by an automatic fire suppression system, but it is still code compliant.
“Because I said so” can take on so many forms.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Dr. J, I like your logic, but then your avatar makes me very suspicious of your argument!!!
Architect1281
REGISTERED
Yikes I love Dr. J's Avatar
it allows him to occasionally drop the big one.
it allows him to occasionally drop the big one.
Dr. J
Silver Member
"What good is a doomsday code if you keep it a secret?"
Actually, besides being a modified movie quote, this is a good philosophy for AHJs and their deisire to "enhance" the code. I have no problem with published policies and amendments, but "because I said so" or "what if" scenarios not supported by the documents adopted by the local legislative body really fuses my neutrons.
Actually, besides being a modified movie quote, this is a good philosophy for AHJs and their deisire to "enhance" the code. I have no problem with published policies and amendments, but "because I said so" or "what if" scenarios not supported by the documents adopted by the local legislative body really fuses my neutrons.
Yankee
REGISTERED
I agree but am humble enough to know that the applicant (you) sometimes needs to educate the BO by providing the (chain of) code section(s) that you believe supports your position.Dr. J said:
FM William Burns
REGISTERED
Nice! .........................................the rest is fill because of a stupid error msg about being too short.