• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Sprinklered Overhangs

B

Big Mac

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
563
What is the opinion in the review community on the requirement for sprinklers under a building extension or overhang where said extension is more than 4’ and where it is likely that goods will be placed for sale (sidewalk sale) etc. The actual language in the NFPA13 Standard is:

2002 NFPA13, Section 8.14.7* Exterior Roofs or Canopies

Unless the requirements of 8.14.7.2 or 8.14.7.3 are met, sprinklers shall be installed under exterior roofs or canopies exceeding 4’ in width.

Subsections 8.14.7.2 or 8.14.7.3 appear to deal with circumstances where said extensions are non-combustible and said extensions are to protect foot traffic from weather elements only.

Subsection 8.14.7.4 then states “Sprinklers shall be installed under roofs or canopies over areas where combustibles are stored or handled.”

2007 NFPA13 and 2010 NFPA13

The wording in the 2007 and the 2010 NFPA13, Section 8.15.7 , is quite similar in nature and the section regarding the storing and handling of combustible materials is moved to Section 8.15.7.5.

It is my contention that “combustible goods stored or handled” would include goods placed for sale.

What would you consider to be the likely-hood that retail establishments will at some point in time be placing goods on the sidewalk for sale?

How would you address this concern?
 
dry system required if it's attached to the "otherwise sprinklered building".. it there is no sprinkler in the main building why would you even think of requiring it?
 
If it meets the criterion we always require protection. Many ways to achieve it not just "dry system".

the likely-hood that retail establishments will at some point in time be placing goods on the sidewalk for sale?
Click to expand...
See it all the time especially with Dollar type and clothing stores;)
 
Look at every Cracker Barrel. My first Dollar Gen. no sprinkler/no sidewalk display. 2nd D. General sprinkler on entryway/sidewalk display. Look at all HM Depot/sprinkler canopies.
 
You can also check the ahj policy for outside sales/ storage

If not allowed, maybe one reason not to require them

I like yo require them
 
This is an excellent topic, and I would be interested to get as many opinions as possible. The Cracker Barrel example is a great one, and I would also mention the large home improvement centers. It doesn't hurt to mention large porte cochere's as well, such as in hotels and casinos. If the building is required to be sprinklered, are you requiring the awning/canopy/overhang/architectural projection to be sprinklered as well?
 
Yes, overhangs greater than 4' and Porte Cochere's. As always this only applies to buildings that have a sprinkler system.

I don't accept pledges that nothing will be stored outside. Promises are like cow pies. Step in one... and there you are.
 
We do to, but it is often contentious. Based on the input from the members who have posted, there is no doubt in my mind that it's the correct interpretation.
 
NFPA 13 Annex notes:

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.

I concur that "sidewalk sales" at retail places, Porte Cocheres with hotel van parking spots, or ambulance entries are beyond "short term transient storage". However, not ALL overhangs on sprinklered buildings require sprinklers.
 
More good info.

Then here's my question: if the IBC defines usable space under roofs without exterior walls as part of the building area, and the building is required to be fully sprinklered, then in the case of a porte cochere (for academic purposes, let's say it doesn't have van storage), is there a conflict between the IBC and NFPA standard?
 
Personally, I don't believe there is a conflict. As you know it boils down to individual interpretation just like most "problems" in our society. However, if one applies the criteria correctly as pointed out...the protection would be required in both documents. There are no loosers here ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FM William Burns said:
Personally, I don't believe there is a conflict. As you know it boils down to individual interpretation just like most "problems" in our society. However, if one applies the criteria correctly as pointed out...the protection would be required in both documents. There are no loosers here ;)
Click to expand...
I agree, but the NFPA info posted by Dr J makes me wonder if I've been doing it right.
 
Has Seattle officially amended something or are they just making stuff up?

I see no conflict - I codes say sprinkler it per NFPA, NFPA says canopy is not sprinklered except in certain cases. The I code includes the square footage of traction elevators, non combustible shafts, 2-hour rated electrical rooms, etc, and these are exempted from sprinkler coverage as well.
 
I've received permission from hotel desk staff to park my motorcycle under a porte cochere on many a stormy night. I've never left it there permanently, so I guess it was "temporarily parked." If there are two lanes, you can bet the shuttle van spends more than its fair share of time under there with no knowlege of or regard for this discussion. IMO, this is precisely why this note goes ignored in many cases. It's easier to require the sprinklers and not have a compliance nightmare for the next 40+ years.

An overhang over a lawn? I agree that's taking it beyond the intent.
 
Good on ya Seattle! Always appreciate written amendments - makes life easier for all. Although someone (wouldn't be me of course) will point out that a canopy sticking out from a building is not a "covered building recess", and that while "decks" with an overhanging canopy are included in the rule, a lawn area with an overhanging canopy is not a deck.
 
From a service company viewpoint, an over hang of 48 " is expensive. A case in point, we have an ALF with a dry system. The overhang is + 48". During construcion, there were no drip drums installed on the dry drops protecting the overhang. Later somone was contracted to install drip drums. The installer used one valve, installed inside the 4" wall. The drains have not been properly drained. This year the cost to repair broken pipes has been $3,000.00 +, and we are not done. The cost to properly install drip drums as per NFPA 13 will add another $7,000.00 to the job, including new dry heads. Over the last 20 years, the management company has spent at least $20,000.00 for a bad design. Too bad no one made the suggestion to trim the rafters.
 
I wouldn't lay all of that on the designer. The original installer should have spoken up. Failing everything else, the inspector should have never allowed it. If installed and maintained properly, that system wouldn't have nearly the problems you're describing.

I wouldn't be surprised to find the contractor installing the drip drums after the fact called it "maintenance" and didn't get a permit . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top