# FYI: Fire sprinklers vs rated enclosure.



## Examiner (Feb 18, 2011)

2006 IFC 903.2 has an Exception to allow deletion of the fire suppression system from basically electrical and telecommunication rooms.  It is an Exception you do not have to take.  However, according to the Commentary and I know from insurance ratings you loose some of the benefits of a sprinkler system if the Exception is required to be used.

Commentary: _Note, however, that this exception requires installation of an automatic fire detection system and fire resistive separation from other portions of the building.  It must also be noted that taking advantage of the exception would __*disqualify the building for any trade-offs or reductions in code requirements *__that are predicated on the building being “equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1” (NFPA 13)._

In other words Allowable Area Increases using a sprinkler system could not be used.  Then there is the loss of Insurance rates for the Owner of the building.

Be aware Building Officials that when your Fire Marshal requires the electrical room of a building required to have a fire suppression system per NFPA 13 other things get affected with no benefit to the Owner of the building which may well be the AHJ’s building and tax dollars of the public.


----------



## Examiner (Feb 18, 2011)

FYI: Fire sprinklers vs rated enclosure.

I put this in the Fire Code post as well.

2006 IFC 903.2 has an Exception to allow deletion of the fire suppression system from basically electrical and telecommunication rooms.  It is an Exception you do not have to take.  However, according to the Commentary and I know from insurance ratings you loose some of the benefits of a sprinkler system if the Exception is required to be used.

Commentary: _Note, however, that this exception requires installation of an automatic fire detection system and fire resistive separation from other portions of the building.  It must also be noted that taking advantage of the exception would __*disqualify the building for any trade-offs or reductions in code requirements *__that are predicated on the building being “equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1” (NFPA 13)._

In other words Allowable Area Increases using a sprinkler system could not be used.  Then there is the loss of Insurance rates for the Owner of the building.

Be aware Building Officials that when your Fire Marshal requires the electrical room of a building required to have a fire suppression system per NFPA 13 other things get affected with no benefit to the Owner of the building which may well be the AHJ’s building and tax dollars of the public.


----------



## permitguy (Feb 18, 2011)

I thought this exception was specific to "telecommunications buildings," and didn't apply to buildings universally.  These buildings often have S-1 fire areas that would require them to be sprinklered throughout.  The exception allows for the omission in areas critical to the continued operation of a phone utility (for instance).

Is this in keeping with others interpretations?  I'm kind of curious now. . .


----------



## RBK (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm with permitguy.  I thought the exception was for "telecommunications buildings", not just for electrical or telecommunications spaces in other buildings.

The commentary is a little confusing.  There are numerous "exceptions" within NFPA 13 that allow for sprinklers to be ommitted from certain spaces.  I don't think the use of those exceptions would disqualify the building from tradeoffs, otherwise there would be a very small percentage of buildings that qualify for any tradeoff.  But perhaps that is the difference between using an exception within NFPA 13 and using an exception in the fire code.

But that, too, is puzzling, since NFPA 13 allows sprinklers to be omitted from electrical equipment rooms under certain conditions.


----------



## cda (Feb 18, 2011)

Not sure if ahj's apply it that way

In that if one room is not sprinkler, trade offs are still allowed


----------



## texasbo (Feb 19, 2011)

Interesting. Never gave it much thought, but I think you and CDA are both right. The code does say "throughout", yet I don't think many building departments disqualify tradeoffs when the exception is invoked. Good post.


----------



## peach (Feb 20, 2011)

Thanks.. interesting.. I personally don't like seeing sprinklers in switch gear rooms, (because electricity and water don't play nicely together).. but the sprinklers are always there.


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 21, 2011)

Please note that the exception to IFC 903.2 only applies to "_telecommunications buildings_".  This is not applicable to switchgear rooms, or telecommunications equipment rooms in just any building.  It needs to be a building dedicated to telecommunications.  An ATT/Verizon/Sprint, etc switch building.

There is an exception in NFPA 13 that allows sprinklers to be omitted from a electrical rooms, where the electric room is enclosed in *two hour* fire resistive construction.  Where this exception is taken, the building is still considered fully sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13, and so all IBC trade offs are still applicable.  This is no different than all the other sprinkler exceptions allowed by NFPA 13 - the building is still considered fully sprinklered even if the top of the elevator shaft does not have a sprinkler.


----------



## RJJ (Feb 21, 2011)

I agree with Dr.J! I believe we had this same question once on the old ICC BB. There I said it! ICC what?


----------



## Examiner (Feb 21, 2011)

I agree that the Exception is for telecommunication rooms but if that room is attached to a building that is not a complete telecommunication building, say a large Business Use Group, would the Business Use Group lose the allowable area increase allowed by using a fire suppression system; assuming that the Business Use Group is so large that it needs the allowable area increase using a fire suppression system?


----------



## Examiner (Feb 21, 2011)

oops how did it post twice


----------



## Dr. J (Feb 22, 2011)

The exception is for "_Spaces or areas in telecommunications buildings _", NOT telecommunication spaces or areas in buildings.  It is not applicable to Examiner's example.  In the olden days, there was a clear demarcation between a telelphone company switch building and everything else.  Now every other building on high ground has a cell site within it.  Those cell sites are just telecommunication spaces in buildings, and do not make the building a "telecommunication building".


----------

