# A3 Pavilion Sprinklers



## jar546 (Jun 24, 2011)

2009 IBC applies

3,200 square foot footprint

V-B construction

He is showing 2 occupant loads:

640 for standing at 5sq'

214 for mixed tables and chairs at 15sq'

The intent is eventually build walls an enclose it BUT that is not what is being applied for initially, just the pavilion.

The licensed DP referenced 903.2.1.3 as an exception as to why sprinklers are not required.  903.2.1.3 is not an exception, I assume they will use the space in 2 different ways of occupancy.

Opinions please.

1st occupant load require sprinklers.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jun 24, 2011)

I would disagree with 5 square feet per person.  People lose independant movement at 5.  7 square feet per person would be more appropriate for a standing reception.  5 is appropriate for a queue line.  The exception in 2006 is for the playing floor.  Would not apply here.  A pavilion over 2,100 square feet for receptions would need sprinklers.


----------



## cda (Jun 24, 2011)

As in pavilion ::::

http://www.cvsnider.com/sites/cvsnider/webcontent/dallas_tumbleweed_su.jpg

Or more like similar;;;

http://www.townofbethlehem.org/images/parks/HenryHudsonParkPavilion.jpg


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 24, 2011)

Lets see sprinkle a 3,210 sq ft pole barn,

I liked the older definition where a building had walls. Today

_BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy._ Kind of all inclusive

 Then there is

_[F] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and __*bounded by*__ fire walls, fire barriers , exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above_.

Do you have to have surrounding walls first before you can count the horizontal projection as a fire area?

What are the hazards to the occupants if the structure has no walls and no exiting issues? Don't get me wrong I think the ambiguous wording in the definitions would lead one to the conclusion it should be sprinklered. I peronally think it is unnessacary until the walls are installed.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 24, 2011)

If it is going to be enclosed, it would be cheaper to go ahead and run the underground fire main for the sprinkler system. I think chairs would be a better appplication than 5 SF. However, this would still require a sprinkler system as the OL exceeds 300.

It is true that fire area definition does not include the wording for exterior walls, however, it may be assumed due to the definition of building area includes areas under a roof without walls.

Why not drop the buidling size to approx. 2100 SF net.... and get below the OL for sprinkler system.


----------



## globe trekker (Jun 24, 2011)

We had one of these a couple of years back, ...approx. 5,000 gross sq. ft.

They too initially said "pavillion", until we mentioned the sprinkling &

number of plumbing fixtures count. Then it quickly became a pole barn

( as mtlogcabin mentioned), ...a Type " U " Occ. Group! Ours still has

no walls though! You say "po-tay-toe", and I say Type U Occ. Group

type structure.    

.


----------



## BSSTG (Jun 24, 2011)

Yea at the rate we're going, we'll have sprinklers in our dog's houses in a couple more code cycles!

BS


----------



## brudgers (Jun 24, 2011)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Yea at the rate we're going, we'll have sprinklers in our dog's houses in a couple more code cycles!BS


I'd laugh, but I know some code official somewhere is classifying dog houses as occupancy group R.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 27, 2011)

U would be the best bet until the walls are added...........


----------



## jar546 (Jun 27, 2011)

How can you classify a pavilion designed for the assembly of people as a U?

Why would you allow something to be called what it is not?

Can you defend yourself in court if you allowed that?

Do we actually have the legal authority to allow that?


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 27, 2011)

All the pictures depicted a structure that did not have any people under it.

This discussion is one of the pet peeves that I have for permanent structures which are occasionally used for public assemblies. We penalize a permanent structure for a sprinkler system but allow tents........up to 9,500 SF plus increased area of open frontage.......No sprinkler system, a few exit signs, emergency illumination, and fire extinguishers.

Wise town coucil members may want to look at a temporary permit for a "TENT" to hold these events in......... The permit would allow the erection of the tent for 180 days, no sprinkler system, and the pad (if constructed with hidden anchor points)  could be used for other events in the off season.


----------



## globe trekker (Jun 27, 2011)

> "*How can you classify a pavilion designed for the assembly of people as **a U?**Why would you allow something to be called what it is not?*
> 
> *Can you defend yourself in court if you allowed that?*
> 
> *Do we actually have the legal authority to allow that?"*


By calling it something other than a pavillion and then using it as one. In my application, theycalled it a pole barn for storage of vehicles, and then when desired, they can use it however

they wish to.

Most, if not all, politicos do not really grasp the codes and their intricate applications. Their

biggest concern is to get re-elected and to NOT have the bothersome, negative telephone

calls coming in with complaints about enforcement of the codes.

Also, with no walls installed, the idea of MOE just does not register with them.

"Codes, ...we don't need no stinking codes!"  

.


----------

