Removing Fire rated Corridors from sprinklered high rise's?

[JPohling]

2013 California Building Code. Section 1018.01 "B" occupancy with automatic fire sprinkler system. Corridor fire resistance rating = zero. This code change has caused quite a bit of discussion in our office and with many building owners that wish to eliminate the existing 1-hour rated corridors that have been constructed under previous years codes.

It is my understanding that if the automatic fire sprinklers are up to current code, CBC section 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems, then any new corridors would no longer need to be fire rated and the existing fire rated corridors would not need to be maintained.

The real question is what are you requiring, documentation wise, that would allow you to make the call regarding if the current sprinkler system is up to snuff?

I currently have a 15 story fully sprinklered building that was built in 1989. The sprinkler system was designed per UBC Standard 38.1. Trying to understand what we are up against.

 

[cda]

If the rated corridors are removed will it affect other building features, such as smoke removal.

Were there other requirements in place related to the rated corridor

First position should be maintain as is

 

[JPohling]

Should not have any effect on the smoke removal. Not sure I understand your question about "other requirements"?

Bump for hopefully some more responses.......................

 

[mark handler]

In my own jurisdiction, Not to be used in any other jurisdiction, I would accept an engineers judgment that the sprinkler system meets or exceeds the current NFPA R13. If it meets current standards, it meets current code and the fire rating would not be needed. But remember, code is a minimum. It is always better to exceed the minimum.

 

[JPohling]

In my own jurisdiction, Not to be used in any other jurisdiction, I would accept an engineers judgment that the sprinkler system meets or exceeds the current NFPA R13. If it meets current standards, it meets current code and the fire rating would not be needed. But remember, code is a minimum. It is always better to exceed the minimum.

Thanks for the info Mark, Did you mean the R13? this is a commercial building.

 

[JBI]

If the corridor walls support rated construction above, there may be an issue with reducing the rating...

 

[mtlogcabin]

Does the current NFPA 13 system have the correct head as required by the current code that allows the rating to be reduced

[F] 903.3.2 Quick-response and residential sprinklers.

Where automatic sprinkler systems are required by this code, quick-response or residential automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the following areas in accordance with Section 903.3.1 and their listings:

1. Throughout all spaces within a smoke compartment containing care recipient sleeping units in Group I-2 in accordance with this code.

2. Throughout all spaces within a smoke compartment containing treatment rooms in ambulatory care facilities.

3. Dwelling units and sleeping units in Group I-1 and R occupancies.

4. Light-hazard occupancies as defined in NFPA 13.

"B" occupanies are usually "light-hazard" occupancy under NFPA13.

Not sure quick response heads where available in 1989.

Do you have the water capacity to install them to make your existing system current with today's requirements to eliminate the corridor ratings.

 

[mark handler]

Thanks for the info Mark, Did you mean the R13? this is a commercial building.

I was thinking residential

NFPA 13: STANDARD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

 

[JPohling]

Been 7 years since I asked this question. Curious how you guys are handling this situation, Hi rise building's constructed prior to NFPA 13 2013 edition was in effect. Building would like to de-rate the corridors due to the fire sprinkler exception? What do you require in order to allow them to do that?

 

[Sifu]

To the best of my memory:

Gone through a re-analysis in one way or another a few times. I can remember two times when the construction type was changed, both times the original documents showed a type V, and they wanted to change to type II. At least once, to remove corridors like your situation. I required an evaluation of the sprinkler to determine if it met NFPA 13, and/or any modifications to the system to get it there, this always included the Fire Official to be on board. We also required a DP (if memory serves we required an FPE) to evaluate the building in it's entirety for any and all markings or systems that would need to be revised for a "deration". Finally, any and all locations that referred to a rated wall, door, damper, etc. that would lead any potential user to believe that they were being protected by the rated corridors was removed or edited. I don't mean they had to remove an element, just do our best to make sure they weren't relied on...and for any future work, so that a designer or inspector wouldn't see a rated door then look above the ceiling and fail them for an penetration. We always required a plan and code analysis describing the intent with all the documentation. I never like being in a situation where I was asked to diminish a life-safety element, so I did a little extra to make sure my bases were covered.

In one of my previous AHJ's, we had a lot of older office buildings that had undergone a sprinkler addition in the past, those reports (when I could find them) were very helpful.

One funny situation I remember:
I inspected an office space, T/I permit in an older NS building. I noticed a real nice glass entry door from the corridor, (from a previous T/I permit). There was a sprinkler head above it, but not one single other head could be seen. I questioned them on the validity of this and they provided a report from many years previous, approved by the AHJ, that said they were allowed to use the glass door if they provided this limited sprinkler coverage to wash the door. No problem I said. But when I poked my head above the ceiling to look at the tops of the walls for penetrations, I saw the sprinkler location, with the head popped through the lid, but not attached to anything. Reports are useless without due diligence.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It happens more than we think

https://plcfire.com/sprinklers-not-connected-to-the-sprinkler-piping-system/

 

[Yikes]

Been 7 years since I asked this question. Curious how you guys are handling this situation, Hi rise building's constructed prior to NFPA 13 2013 edition was in effect. Building would like to de-rate the corridors due to the fire sprinkler exception? What do you require in order to allow them to do that?

Most of the AHJs that I work with would allow either of the following 2 approaches:

1. Prescriptive: Treat the code as a unified whole. If you are no longer following the code for the era in which the building was first constructed, then do a complete revised code analysis, utilizing current code as if it were a new building.
2. Performance: Use an alternate materials and methods (CBC 104.11) performance approach, and submit documentation (such as a report from a fire protection engineer) for justifying the change.

 

[steveray]

Use the IEBC? Or at least the thought process....

804.1 Scope. The requirements of this section shall be limited
to work areas in which Level 2 alterations are being performed,
and where specified they shall apply throughout the
floor on which the work areas are located or otherwise
beyond the work area.
804.1.1 Corridor ratings. Where an approved automatic
sprinkler system is installed throughout the story, the
required fire-resistance rating for any corridor located on
the story shall be permitted to be reduced in accordance
with the International Building Code. In order to be considered
for a corridor rating reduction, such system shall
provide coverage for the stairway landings serving the
floor and the intermediate landings immediately below.

 

[Genduct]

To the best of my memory:

Gone through a re-analysis in one way or another a few times. I can remember two times when the construction type was changed, both times the original documents showed a type V, and they wanted to change to type II. At least once, to remove corridors like your situation. I required an evaluation of the sprinkler to determine if it met NFPA 13, and/or any modifications to the system to get it there, this always included the Fire Official to be on board. We also required a DP (if memory serves we required an FPE) to evaluate the building in it's entirety for any and all markings or systems that would need to be revised for a "deration". Finally, any and all locations that referred to a rated wall, door, damper, etc. that would lead any potential user to believe that they were being protected by the rated corridors was removed or edited. I don't mean they had to remove an element, just do our best to make sure they weren't relied on...and for any future work, so that a designer or inspector wouldn't see a rated door then look above the ceiling and fail them for an penetration. We always required a plan and code analysis describing the intent with all the documentation. I never like being in a situation where I was asked to diminish a life-safety element, so I did a little extra to make sure my bases were covered.

In one of my previous AHJ's, we had a lot of older office buildings that had undergone a sprinkler addition in the past, those reports (when I could find them) were very helpful.

One funny situation I remember:
I inspected an office space, T/I permit in an older NS building. I noticed a real nice glass entry door from the corridor, (from a previous T/I permit). There was a sprinkler head above it, but not one single other head could be seen. I questioned them on the validity of this and they provided a report from many years previous, approved by the AHJ, that said they were allowed to use the glass door if they provided this limited sprinkler coverage to wash the door. No problem I said. But when I poked my head above the ceiling to look at the tops of the walls for penetrations, I saw the sprinkler location, with the head popped through the lid, but not attached to anything. Reports are useless without due diligence.

Couldn't you just submit a Life Safety Drawing for a Permit Review so that the new layout could be evaluated in the context of today's Code requirements?
Without the Drawing and being on file, seems like just a discussion without any actionable elements