# NFPA 13R Patios and IFC requirements for sprinklers



## jar546 (Jul 1, 2013)

Section 903.3.1.2.1 of the International Fire Code requires sprinkler protection to be provided for exterior balconies and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction.

Is sprinkler protection required for a single balcony and/or ground floor patio where no balcony and/or ground floor patio is provided above or below?


----------



## cda (Jul 1, 2013)

Would say No

But your honor can you have the attorney restate the question;;

Is sprinkler protection required for a single balcony and/or ground floor patio where no balcony and/or ground floor patio is provided above or below?

09

903.3.1.2.1 Balconies and decks. Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction, provided there is a roof or deck above. Sidewall sprinklers that are used to protect such areas shall be permitted to be located such that their deflectors are within 1 inch (25 mm) to 6 inches (152 mm) below the structural members and a maximum distance of 14 inches (356 mm) below the deck of the exterior balconies and decks that are constructed of open wood joist construction.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jul 1, 2013)

I do not have an answer for you But if a sprinkler is required have them put in one that will not corrode from the weather. The sprinkler will need to be a dry side wall sprinkler, most installed are chrome which within a few years will turn green and need to be replaced. Victaulic makes a dry side wall sprinkler  which is Nickel Teflon* Coated and will not corrode. If not they also make a wax coated sprinkler. Remember as per NFPA 25 dry sprinklers are only good for 10 years and then have to be tested and or replaced. Dry sprinklers have a 50% failure rate.

Here is some info from Victaulic http://static.victaulic.com/assets/uploads/literature/TB-900.pdf

http://static.victaulic.com/assets/uploads/literature/40.64.pdf


----------



## jar546 (Jul 1, 2013)

Here is the official answer of the ICC technical committee.



> _Yes. Although an NFPA 13R automatic sprinkler system, as referenced in Section 903.3.1.2, allows sprinkler heads__to be omitted from attics and similar unoccupied spaces, Section 903.3.1.2.1 of the International Fire Code specifically_
> 
> _requires the sprinkler system to be extended to provide protection for all exterior balconies, exterior decks, and exterior_
> 
> ...


----------



## cda (Jul 1, 2013)

That makes NO sense

You might ask them to read the commentary that some agency called icc puts out.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 1, 2013)

903.3.1.2.1 Balconies and decks. Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction,* provided there is a roof or deck above*. Sidewall sprinklers that are used to protect such areas shall be permitted to be located such that their deflectors are within 1 inch (25 mm) to 6 inches (152 mm) below the structural members and a maximum distance of 14 inches (356 mm) below the deck of the exterior balconies and decks that are constructed of open wood joist construction.

The committee is wrong. Thankfully they are not the final authority the AHJ is.


----------



## cda (Jul 1, 2013)

I think they defaulted to this section: exception # 2

2) Why do some inspectors still insist on doing things their way, regardless of legally adopted codes?


----------



## High Desert (Jul 1, 2013)

The interpretation is right based on the code they made the interpretation on. The interp is dated 2006 and based on the 2003 edition, which didn't have the "provided there is a roof or a deck above" language. It just needs to be updated to the 2009 language.


----------



## JPohling (Jul 1, 2013)

insurance engineer said:
			
		

> i do not have an answer for you but if a sprinkler is required have them put in one that will not corrode from the weather. The sprinkler will need to be a dry side wall sprinkler, most installed are chrome which within a few years will turn green and need to be replaced. Victaulic makes a dry side wall sprinkler  which is nickel teflon* coated and will not corrode. If not they also make a wax coated sprinkler. Remember as per nfpa 25 dry sprinklers are only good for 10 years and then have to be tested and or replaced. Dry sprinklers have a 50% failure rate. Here is some info from victaulic http://static.victaulic.com/assets/uploads/literature/tb-900.pdf
> 
> http://static.victaulic.com/assets/uploads/literature/40.64.pdf


50% failure rate  wth?


----------



## cda (Jul 1, 2013)

Ok Jar

What edition are you looking at ???


----------



## cda (Jul 1, 2013)

2003 kind of infers you need something above you,

903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where allowed

in buildings of Group R, up to and including four

stories in height, automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed

throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R.

903.3.1.2.1 Balconies. Sprinkler protection shall be

provided for exterior balconies and ground floor patios

of dwelling units where the building is of Type V

construction. Sidewall sprinklers that are used to protect

such areas shall be permitted to be located such

that their deflectors are within 1 inch (25 mm) to 6

inches (152 mm) below the structural members, and a

maximum distance of 14 inches (356 mm) below the

deck of the exterior balconies that are constructed of

open wood joist construction.

903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jul 1, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> 50% failure rate  wth?


Yes as per NFPA 25 Handbook 2011 edition, it says 50 % that is why I tell my clients to just replace of they have a few such as a walk in freezer.


----------



## peach (Jul 2, 2013)

you are really protecting the occupants above (and below) a deck... not the deck in question.  Makes no sense to protect... well, God.


----------



## shack502 (Jul 29, 2013)

what about top floors with deck and a peak roof over...?...

some jurisdictions are allowing them to elliminate heads due to height of roof peaks over decks...?...any thoughts...


----------



## cda (Jul 29, 2013)

Welcome??? almost in Canada huh??

My opinion if the head is worthless why should it be there? as in will it even activate?


----------

