spriklered 7,000 sf bldg, 3N, S-1, Does new storage room need sprinklers?

[Keith]

The owner of a sprinklered 7,000 sf Type 3N building with S-1 occupancy wants to add an 180 SF storage room inside the building. It's a corner building open on 2 sides.

The building is currently sprinklered.

For a new the storage room, by code there doesn't seem to be a requirement for the sprinklers.

Anything in the code allow for partially sprinklered building where sprinklers are not required?

Is there anything mentioned above that triggered the requirement for the building to be sprinklered in the first place?

Thanks

 

[RLGA]

It's hard to say without more information. What code was it originally built under? What is being stored and how is it stored?

My initial thought is that a sprinkler system was not initially required based on construction type and and area, especially when considering the 2009 IBC.

 

[steveray]

Tough to say without more info....here it would have to be at least 1hr rated or sprinklered...

 

[cda]

Keith

If you start with the base building/ fire code it says sprinkle

Per nfpa13

Which says sprinkle throughout with exceptions

A new enclosure is not an exception

Does not matter why it was sprinkled in the first place

The sprinkler pipe is already there, just drop maybe 8 to 10 heads, not a designer,

Or if a ceiling is not added, maybe just a little adjusting,

 

[cda]

"""Is there anything mentioned above that triggered the requirement for the building to be sprinklered in the first place"""

ti many variables to answer the question, someone would have to research the history of the building and codes in place at time of review

 

[Keith]

all or nothing, Through out - alternative suppression system, small scale.

You're right, it doesn't matter why in the first place! Something I learned this week.

I also learned that it is preferably an all or nothing system.

No one from fire so far seemed to know of any exception. It was hinted at, but only in passing me up to the captain, who I don't plan to hear back from at this point, until I call again with more insight or idea for exception to the rule.

I'm not sure I completely grasp why a partially sprinklered building is so forbidden.

I can see the benefit, but it is a bit off track in that the two codes don't seem coordinated. The two codes in conflict being (1.) an existing sprinkler system has to be maintained and occur throughout even if the (2.) occupancy nor building type require it.

Ok, I accept defeat regardless of the inconsistency of the code, now what?

What are my options for a 180 sf storage room?

There are pipes above and probably in the wall too we can add a few heads from, but are there any other systems we could save money with that are independent of the existing sprinkler?

& are allowed in the inspection & documentation that qualifies the building as sprinklered.

Each city is different I know as each jurisdiction has it's own policy based on environment and experience.

Granted, it's an auto repair, I agree it should be protected, but any alternatives ?

Do multiple systems go against the grain of the word 'through out' ?

Thanks to everyone here,

Keith

KeithIf you start with the base building/ fire code it says sprinkle

Per nfpa13

Which says sprinkle throughout with exceptions

A new enclosure is not an exception

Does not matter why it was sprinkled in the first place

The sprinkler pipe is already there, just drop maybe 8 to 10 heads, not a designer,

Or if a ceiling is not added, maybe just a little adjusting,

 

[permitguy]

I guess I missed this thread. I know I'm late to the party, but what about these requirments:

901.4 Installation. Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. Required systems shall be extended, altered or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to. Alterations to fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards.

901.4.1 Required fire protection systems. Fire protection systems required by this code or the International Building Code shall be installed, repaired, operated, tested and maintained in accordance with this code.

901.4.2 Nonrequired fire protection systems. Any fire protection system or portion thereof not required by this code or the International Building Code shall be allowed to be furnished for partial or complete protection provided such installed system meets the requirements of this code and the International Building Code.

I'm not saying they shouldn't extend sprinklers to the area in question, but they aren't necessarily required to.

 

[AegisFPE]

We're currently dealing with a similar issue on another S-1 building. I'm with PermitGuy with regard to applying IFC 901.4.2, such that the existing system is nonrequired (verified by analysis of current IBC and IFC provisions) and provides partial protection.

It would seem that citing NFPA 13 provisions as justification for installing new sprinklers should be trumped by IFC 102.4 and 903.3.1.1, such that NFPA 13 is only applicable to the extent it is specifically referenced by the code.

 

[Keith]

901.4, 901.1.1, 901.4.2

Thank you for the actual codes which are at the heart of it all.

In plan check, the fire official repeated the first sentence of 901.4. And I had to repeat that the system is currently not required.

She understood it as maintaining the system to its standards and capacity.

And in her humble opinion, partial was not the standard.

I guess I missed this thread. I know I'm late to the party, but what about these requirments:901.4 Installation. Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. Required systems shall be extended, altered or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to. Alterations to fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards.

901.4.1 Required fire protection systems. Fire protection systems required by this code or the International Building Code shall be installed, repaired, operated, tested and maintained in accordance with this code.

901.4.2 Nonrequired fire protection systems. Any fire protection system or portion thereof not required by this code or the International Building Code shall be allowed to be furnished for partial or complete protection provided such installed system meets the requirements of this code and the International Building Code.

I'm not saying they shouldn't extend sprinklers to the area in question, but they aren't necessarily required to.

 

[cda]

keith:

"I'm not sure I completely grasp why a partially sprinklered building is so forbidden."""

if the fire happens to start in a non sprinkled area, by the time it breaks out, it may be so big that it overwhelms the fire sprinkler system and sprinkled building burns to the ground

The sprinkler pipe is already there, just drop maybe 8 to 10 heads, not a designer,

Or if a ceiling is not added, maybe just a little adjusting,

one other thing is the persons insurance company may not llike missing sprinklers

 

[permitguy]

She understood it as maintaining the system to its standards and capacity. And in her humble opinion, partial was not the standard.

I guess she should have read the entire code section, as well as those that follow it. The code very clearly permits partial installation of a non-required system.

 

[Paul Sweet]

It might not be required by code, but will the insurance company continue to cover it? BTW, 180 SF should only require a couple heads, not 8 to 10.

 

[permitguy]

The insurance aspect is definitely worth the owner looking into, and you're correct about the number of heads.

 

[cda]

paul that is why I do not design