# another mixed use ? on sprinklers



## BSSTG (Mar 7, 2011)

Greetings all,

I am hearing of a possilbe project coming up. An existing F1 of about 4000 sq/ft. What is proposed is atop the F1 putting several  R2 apartments. R2 has to have sprinklers for sure. What about separation? Going to T508.3.3 it states that 2 hour separation is required between the F1 and R2 if the the building in nonsprinklered. I am assuming this will apply unless they want to go back and sprinkler the F1(even thoughi it's existing) as well which would mean the entire building would be sprinklered. Therefore if the whole building is sprinklered, only a 1 hour separation would be required. Am I assessing this correctly?

There is also a possilbility that the entire building might exceed the area limitations of T503. I don't know for sure. If the entire project exceeds the allowable 9500 sq/ft for VB, they will have to sprinkler the whole place anyway to allow for the increased size of a mixed use occupancy. Right?

thanks folks

BS


----------



## steveray (Mar 7, 2011)

Watch that horizontal fire barrier for the VB.......make sure you get the UL# and it in done properly, and that means that EVERYTHING that holds it up also has the same rating.....I think you are correct on the rating reduction...can't check right now...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 7, 2011)

Remember that is a full NFPA 13 sytem throughout the entire building


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 7, 2011)

Sprinklers would be required throughout the building since you are adding a Group R-2 occupancy to the fire area.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Sprinklers would be required throughout the building since you are adding a Group R-2 occupancy to the fire area.


Yep the entire building must be sprinklered because there is a group R fire area. The system could be 13R typically.


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 7, 2011)

OK

Got it. I was mistaken. I was thinking you could utlilize 508.3 for separated occs and get away without sprinklering the whole bldg, only the R. With that in mind, could the rules for 508.2 be applied by requiring the whole bldg to be sprinklered per NFPA 13 and negate the separation requirement as along as the area restrictions of T503 were met? Wouldn't the buidling then be considered nonseparated occupancies?

BS


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 7, 2011)

With others...once you add the new R its a new ball game and the entire building housing a R use is affected.

Part II question, I believe is Yes if 13 system used not just the 13R.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 7, 2011)

If they need an area increase they need a 13 system throughout.  Otherwise they can use a 13R in the R, 13 in the F-1.  1 hour separation when sprinklered, correct.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 7, 2011)

Post deleted since I used wrong code section.

ops


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 7, 2011)

[F] 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems.

Where the provisions of this code require that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1.1.

footnote from Table 508.4

S  = Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.

NS  = Buildings not equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.

It is not a sprinklered building under 508.4 unless it is a full NFPA 13 system. A 13R will not give you the reduction.


----------



## steveray (Mar 7, 2011)

TJ....I thinjk you can still get a reduction from 2 to 1, just not from 1 to 0....differences when you are talking about construction type "protection" vs occupaccy seperations...


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> If they need an area increase they need a 13 system throughout.  Otherwise they can use a 13R in the R, 13 in the F-1.  1 hour separation when sprinklered, correct.


 On what basis would the F1 occupancy require a full 13 system?


----------



## steveray (Mar 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> On what basis would the F1 occupancy require a full 13 system?


903.2.7 IBC CT  shall be provided throughout all buildings with a group R fire area.....


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 7, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> TJ....I thinjk you can still get a reduction from 2 to 1, just not from 1 to 0....differences when you are talking about construction type "protection" vs occupaccy seperations...


Thanks.  Actually I referred to the wrong code section.  Table 601 applies to structural fire ratings, so for a VB there are none.  For separated occupancies, Table 508.3.3 is used, which requires 1 hour separation with a 13 system and 2 hours without a 13 system.  My mistake.

The OP could bump up the TOC to VA to get more allowable area, at which point fire area comes into play.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> on what basis would the f1 occupancy require a full 13 system?


nfpa 13r 3.3.6, a.1.1.

(anybody know why it changes capital letters to small?)


----------



## brudgers (Mar 7, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> nfpa 13r 3.3.6, a.1.1.(anybody know why it changes capital letters to small?)


Yep and any building with cmu exterior walls and wood trusses is Type III.


----------



## JBI (Mar 7, 2011)

Ben, the trigger for sprinklers is not the F-1, it's the proposed R occupancy.

Since the sprinklers are 'required throughout' buildings with R occupancies, the F-1 gets them also.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 8, 2011)

JBI said:
			
		

> Ben, the trigger for sprinklers is not the F-1, it's the proposed R occupancy. Since the sprinklers are 'required throughout' buildings with R occupancies, the F-1 gets them also.


Is it not the case that an R13 system is a sprinkler system under the IBC?


----------



## permitguy (Mar 8, 2011)

Hell, why not shred 13 and 13R and just use 13D for everything?  I mean, a sprinkler system is a sprinkler system is a sprinkler system, right?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 8, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Is it not the case that an R13 system is a sprinkler system under the IBC?


It is one of three types that is referenced under the IBC as an  "automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2". As noted above in post#10 a sprinklered building under Table 508.4 is "S = Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1." all other systems are not considered a sprinkler building for the purpose of reducing occupancy seperation requirements.

Can he put a 13R in the apartments and a 13 in the F-1 and be sprinklered? Yes but he can not reduce the seperation requirement from 2 to 1 hour as required by Table 508.4 because it would be considered a non-sprinklered building under that code section.

NS  = Buildings not equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 8, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> It is one of three types that is referenced under the IBC as an  "automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2". As noted above in post#10 a sprinklered building under Table 508.4 is "S = Buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1." all other systems are not considered a sprinkler building for the purpose of reducing occupancy seperation requirements.Can he put a 13R in the apartments and a 13 in the F-1 and be sprinklered? Yes but he can not reduce the seperation requirement from 2 to 1 hour as required by Table 508.4 because it would be considered a non-sprinklered building under that code section.
> 
> NS  = Buildings not equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.


 Two hour construction will often be less expensive than a full 13 in a wood frame building. Particularly when a full 13 will still require upgrading the existing structure to one hour.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 8, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Hell, why not shred 13 and 13R and just use 13D for everything?  I mean, a sprinkler system is a sprinkler system is a sprinkler system, right?


Where appropriate, 13D provides the level of life safety intended by the code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 8, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Two hour construction will often be less expensive than a full 13 in a wood frame building. Particularly when a full 13 will still require upgrading the existing structure to one hour.


As an AHJ I do not have to be concerned with the cost. I just have to agree that the path you choose as a DP is code compliant


----------



## permitguy (Mar 8, 2011)

> Where appropriate, 13D provides the level of life safety intended by the code.


Alright then, find someone (besides yourself) that thinks 13R or 13D provide the appropriate level of protection for an F occupancy.  Best of luck in that endeavor.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 8, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Alright then, find someone (besides yourself) that thinks 13R or 13D provide the appropriate level of protection for an F occupancy.  Best of luck in that endeavor.


In this case, the code does not require protection of the F occupancy, the code requires protection of the R occupancy. In so far as I recall, the boss of the OP in the related thread had the same common sense interpretation. He probably read the entire code instead of opening up the book at random.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 8, 2011)

> In this case, the code does not require protection of the F occupancy, the code requires protection of the R occupancy.


Ummmmm . . . nope.  Keep tryin', though.  You're bound to get it eventually!


----------



## JBI (Mar 8, 2011)

Actually Ben the R occupancy creates the requirement for sprinkler protection throughout the fire area.

All one fire area, all sprinklered to the appropriate standard.

13D is not the appropriate standard.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 8, 2011)

JBI said:
			
		

> Actually Ben the R occupancy creates the requirement for sprinkler protection throughout the fire area. All one fire area, all sprinklered to the appropriate standard.
> 
> 13D is not the appropriate standard.


With an F and an R there will always be two fire areas.

It is the *building* which is required to be sprinklered.

When reading the code one needs to pay close attention to which words are used [and which words are not used].

However you are correct that 13D is not appropriate - as I stated earlier, 13R is the minimum required with an R2 occupancy in a two story building.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 9, 2011)

I have a question; 903.3.1.2 states: "Where allowed in buildings *of * Group R,...in accordance with NFPA 13R.

Is this a building *of * Group R, or is it a building *containing* a Group R?


----------



## permitguy (Mar 9, 2011)

The '09 changed it to :  Automatic sprinkler systems in Group R occupancies up to and including four stories in height shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R.



> When reading the code one needs to pay close attention to which words are used [and which words are not used].


Some would do well to heed their own advice.  13R is not appropriate protection for the F, no matter which code or standard you're reading.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 9, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> With an F and an R there will always be two fire areas.


Not unless they are constructed as 2 seperate fire areas

[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.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Not unless they are constructed as 2 seperate fire areas[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.


There will always be a fire barrier between F and R. See table 508.3.3


----------



## texasbo (Mar 11, 2011)

Strangely, I can't find the part that says F and R don't get the benefit of nonseparated occupancies.

Which of course would require the most restrictive provisions of Chapter 9.

Which would require 13.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

Now try actually reading Chapter 9.

Then you will find the four threshold conditions under which F-1 occupancies mandate the installation of sprinklers according to NFPA 13.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 11, 2011)

Found it: 903.2.7. "An automatic system installed in accordance with Section 903 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area."

That's the 5th Condition.

That means the Group F is required to be sprinklered.

That means 13.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Found it: 903.2.7. "An automatic system installed in accordance with Section 903 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area."That's the 5th Condition.
> 
> That means the Group F is required to be sprinklered.
> 
> That means 13.


The *building* is required to be sprinklered.

There's nothing about occupancy.

903 includes 13, 13R and 13D

Have you considered reading for comprehension?


----------



## texasbo (Mar 11, 2011)

The *building* contains both R and F. The most restrictive applies. Remember the section I quoted just a couple of posts ago? I bet if you'd look, you'd see it's in your code too.

And you never answered my question. Is an R/F building not eligible for nonseparated uses?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

The non-separated occupancies would require a 13R system as well (provided the thresholds for a 13 system for an F1 occupancy were not exceeded).

Of course, your code says nothing which requires a 13 system in the case under consideration. But from long experience, I know that won't keep you from misapplying the code.

The R requirements are most restrictive because they contain a sprinkler requirement for the building. The F1 requirements are less restrictive because they contain no sprinkler requirement.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 11, 2011)

> Milton's Rule: Start with "How can I approve this set of plans."


One way is to be devoid of the knowledge needed to apply the code properly.  Of course, that is considered misfeasance in most states.


----------



## steveray (Mar 11, 2011)

I gotta learn how to do that little smiley with the popcorn.......BTW...I am with the 13 in the F....maybe going to 901.2?   Just because the system is not required by the F occ....it still needs to be installed as a required system would be in an F???   IMO


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> I gotta learn how to do that little smiley with the popcorn.......BTW...I am with the 13 in the F....maybe going to 901.2?   Just because the system is not required by the F occ....it still needs to be installed as a required system would be in an F???   IMO


If it was installed per the requirements for F, there would be no system.


----------



## steveray (Mar 11, 2011)

901.2 Fire protection systems.

Fire protection systems shall be installed, repaired, operated and maintained in accordance with this code and the International Fire Code.

Any fire protection system for which an exception or reduction to the provisions of this code has been granted shall be considered to be a required system.

Exception: Any fire protection system or portion thereof *not required by this code *shall be permitted to be installed for partial or complete protection provided that such system *meets the requirements of this code.*

Would a 13 R system ever satisfy the code requirements for an F use?


----------



## permitguy (Mar 11, 2011)

I'd like to think brudgers knows this, but I wouldn't take it for granted:

508.3.1 Occupancy classification. Nonseparated occupancies shall be individually classified in accordance with Section 302.1. The requirements of this code shall apply to each portion of the building based on the occupancy classification of that space except that the most restrictive applicable provisions of Section 403 and Chapter 9 shall apply to the building or portion thereof in which the nonseparated occupancies are located.

508.4.1 Occupancy classification. Separated occupancies shall be individually classified in accordance with Section 302.1. Each separated space shall comply with this code based on the occupancy classification of that portion of the building.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 11, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The non-separated occupancies would require a 13R system as well (provided the thresholds for a 13 system for an F1 occupancy were not exceeded).


Translation: "I apologize Texasbo; you were right and I was wrong. There will NOT ALWAYS be a fire barrier between an F and an R".



> Of course, your code says nothing which requires a 13 system in the case under consideration. But from long experience, I know that won't keep you from misapplying the code.


Actually, my code says nothing which allows a 13R, and neither does yours. You see, that's only allowed in buildings of Group R Occupancy. This is a building of mixed occupancy.



> The R requirements are most restrictive because they contain a sprinkler requirement for the building. The F1 requirements are less restrictive because they contain no sprinkler requirement.


Now you're just getting desperate. Not at all unlike a wounded animal, who knows the end is inevitable.

And in fact, in this case the code does require sprinklers for the F occupancy. It's required by 903.2.7.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 11, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I'd like to think brudgers knows this, but I wouldn't take it for granted:508.3.1 Occupancy classification. Nonseparated occupancies shall be individually classified in accordance with Section 302.1. The requirements of this code shall apply to each portion of the building based on the occupancy classification of that space except that the most restrictive applicable provisions of Section 403 and Chapter 9 shall apply to the building or portion thereof in which the nonseparated occupancies are located.
> 
> 508.4.1 Occupancy classification. Separated occupancies shall be individually classified in accordance with Section 302.1. Each separated space shall comply with this code based on the occupancy classification of that portion of the building.


Yes, that's the section I referred to earlier. His response was that the requirements for Group R are more restrictive. Pure fantasy.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 11, 2011)

The sprinkler guy would soil himself if he knew someone would let him sprinkler an F with a 13R.

opcorn


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> Would a 13 R system ever satisfy the code requirements for an F use?


A 13R would exceed the requirements of an F use when the F use is limited so as to not require sprinklers.

Which is the case here.

Again, it is the building which is required to have sprinklers throughout when a group R occupancy is present.

If a the intent was for a full 13 system, then the code would so state (as the code does whenever a full 13 system is required) - since the sprinkler requirements for all other occupancies are based on full 13.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Translation: "I apologize Texasbo; you were right and I was wrong. There will NOT ALWAYS be a fire barrier between an F and an R".


Do you log in as "mtlogcabin" and have trouble keeping your accounts straight?

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?4450-another-mixed-use-on-sprinklers&p=46036&viewfull=1#post46036

Or is it just another in your long line of delusional misreadings?


----------



## texasbo (Mar 11, 2011)

Charlie Sheen, do you always log in as brudgers, or just when you're feeling particularly unstable?

The fact that we both recognize your ignorance doesn't make us the same person.

And believing that everyone who disagrees with you is the same person sounds like delusional behavior to me...

http://www.everythingyoulikeisstupid.com/2011/01/10/im-so-glad-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-so-stupid-or-otherwise-i-might-have-to-actually-think-about-things/

We all want the link to your Twitter account.


----------

