# fire sprinkler coverage #2



## cda (Mar 23, 2010)

Restaurant type set up , with building having a fire sprinkler system.

1. do you measure off the back of the wall where the vent a hood is located, and require a sprinkler head with in 7'6" ( normal head)

2. or say you had a four foot deep vent a hood, do you measure the 7'6" of the front of the hood???

so you first head would be 11'6" off the back wall.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

from the 2007 edition of NFPA 13


```
7.10 Commercial-Type Cooking Equipment and Ventilation.  7.10.2.4 Hoods containing automatic fire-extinguishing systems are protected areas; therefore, these hoods are not considered obstructions to overhead sprinkler systems and shall not require floor coverage underneath.
```


----------



## cda (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

now you did went and got code on me.

aware of that section do not like it though. well there goes another code change fight.

what if half the hood has protection and the other half does not say because it has an enclosed oven???


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

Then that area under the hood is "not protected" and an automatic sprinkler would be needed under the hood at that point to protect the areas not covered by an extinguishing system.

FWIW - many kitchen exhaust duct systems also require sprinklers.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

You saying a sprinkler head is required in the hood and duct where nozzles don't protect the oven?

Don't forget there's nozzles in the plenum and duct and the system, upon activation, should shut down the appliances.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

One more thing...

IMO, and I may be wrong, but sprinklers wouldn't be required where an approved system is installed in its place.  The system by code is approved not to have nozzle protection over the oven.

Just like in 13, where they omit sprinkler protection in certain areas and its still an approved system.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

the oven needs to be protected.  The protection could be by sprinklers or other approved extinguishing system.  The sprinkler requirements in the ducts are based upon the presence, or lack thereof,  of a listed grease extractor.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

The code section you stated states "Hoods containing automatic fire-extinguishing systems are protected areas; therefore, these hoods are not considered obstructions to overhead sprinkler systems and shall not require floor coverage underneath."

So, a hood that has an AFES and no protection for the oven still contains an AFES??



> 7.10.2.5 Cooking equipment below hoods that contain automaticfire-extinguishing equipment is protected and shall not
> 
> require protection from the overhead sprinkler system.


The hood still contains an AFES, it doesn't say anything about requiring protection over all appliances.

Anywhere I've gone, I've NEVER seen a fire sprinkler head installed over an oven where an AFES has been installed.  I know that doesn't mean that's right, are the other code sections you can point me to?


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

I am not sure what your question is.  However, NFPA 13 requires the building to be fully sprinklered.  The hood would need to be treated as an obstruction.  NFPA 13 also states that areas under hood can be either sprinklered or protected with another type of automatic extinguishing system.   Therefore, if you provide a hood, but an alternate automatic extinguishing system under only part of the hood, then the rest of the area under the needs sprinklers.  Otherwise, you would have an area of the building that is not protected by either a fire sprinkler or an alternate automatic extinguishing system.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

I just disagree with your logic.  13 even says it's not an obstruction with an AFES.   It does not say the AFES must have nozzles over every appliance, just needs to "contain" an AFES.

Would you require a bathroom in a hotel dwelling unit 55 sq ft or less be sprinklered based upon the building must be fully sprinklered requirement?


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

If the hood extended 30 feet beyond the last piece of cooking equipment protected by an automatic extinguishing system and is used for storage racks (nothing in the code says a kitchen hood can only extend over cooking equipment) would you not require sprinklers under that area of the hood?  The floor area occupied by the oven needs to be protected.  It does not need to have a kitchen system, but it still needs to be protected.

If the adopted code allows bathrooms to not have sprinklers, I believe the buillding would still be fully sprinklered.  (ICC does not categorically agree, however)

I had a ten story office building sitting on top of three levels of open parking garage.  ICC agreed in a written interpretation that the open parking levels did not require sprinklers as part of the high rise building, but the high rise building could not be considered as fully sprinklered.  Not sprinklering the garage levels did not pencil out for an office building, but it could work for a hotel, aprartments or condos because the corridors would need to be rated under other provisions.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

NFPA 96 [10.8.1] and NFPA 13 [7.10.2.4 – 7.10.2.5] and the IFC/IMC for that matter address the sprinkler provisions and or their lack of requirement for the protection “under or above” Type I hoods.

I am in agreement that the area under the hood does not need overhead sprinkler protection and is not considered an obstruction to OH heads.  The way we have always handled this dilemma is that the proximity heads outside the dimensions of the hood are required to be listed for high temperature and are spaced to cover the floor space outside the dimensions of the hood assembly.

For an area under the hood not covered by the automatic hood suppression system; we are not necessarily concerned about it since the heads outside the dimensions of the hood assembly will fuse if necessary to control anything outside the hood and this coupled with the exhaust ventilation will logically keep a fire event under the hood until the outside proximity heads fuse.  Hopefully the staff is trained with the “K” and use what we teach them if necessary, until the big red truck shows up.

I totally understand the protection of a large area under the hood that does not have automatic suppression and a desire to protect it with "sprinklers" but I would have to evaluate that on a case by case basis due to area and design of the protection outside the hood but "we" don't typically see them here in Mayberry so we use the approach above.......JMHO


----------



## Builder Bob (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2



> I am in agreement that the area under the hood does not need overhead sprinkler protection and is not considered an obstruction to OH heads. The way we have always handled this dilemma is that the proximity heads outside the dimensions of the hood are required to be listed for high temperature and are spaced to cover the floor space outside the dimensions of the hood assembly.


 For clarification (Since I did not see the construction type), If a wood frame building, sprinklers would be required for the combustible framing above the hood system, but not because of the hood system.  Required for protection of the combustible framing.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

Yep, with ya there BB good clairification  

Took for granted that it was non combustible


----------



## Marshal Chris (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: fire sprinkler coverage #2

As did I and agree with BB.


----------

