# Unsprinklered attic?



## steveray (Oct 2, 2015)

2003 I

Codes apply and 2002 NFPA 13

903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. [F]

Where the provisions of this code require that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1.1.

903.3.1.1.1 Exempt locations. [F]

Automatic sprinklers shall not be required in the following rooms or areas where such rooms or areas are protected with an approved automatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 907.2 that will respond to visible or invisible particles of combustion. Sprinklers shall not be omitted from any room merely because it is damp, of fire-resistance-rated construction or contains electrical equipment.

1. Any room where the application of water, or flame and water, constitutes a serious life or fire hazard.

2. Any room or space where sprinklers are considered undesirable because of the nature of the contents, when approved by the building official.

3. Generator and transformer rooms separated from the remainder of the building by walls and floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assemblies having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours.

4. In rooms or areas that are of noncombustible construction with wholly noncombustible contents.

Unsprinklered attic (containing mechanical equipment) in IIB R2 apartments. Designer is claiming 8.14.1.2.2 for non and limited combustible attic (which may or not be the case in reality)

Does exception#4 in the IBC trump NFPA 13 with it's "limited combustible" reference? Or are they just different exemptions?  Thanks!


----------



## cda (Oct 2, 2015)

Ok what type occupancy are you dealing with?

And are you looking at

Nfpa 13

Or

Nfpa 13R


----------



## cda (Oct 2, 2015)

And is the attic combustible construction?


----------



## steveray (Oct 2, 2015)

Full 13....Attic has FRTW, fiberglass insulation, proper venting, mechanical equipment, etc...Jury is still out on the "limited combustibility" aspect as it is definitely not "noncombustible". But I really just want to know what opinions are on item #4 overriding the 13 section....


----------



## cda (Oct 2, 2015)

If the attic is not used for storage and the wood meets the requirements of Nfpa 13 for non com

No sprinklers are required

Not in the office so cannot reference 13.

I would say item 4 would not apply to this more Nfpa 13


----------



## cda (Oct 2, 2015)

Different exemptions


----------



## cda (Oct 2, 2015)

NFPA 13 2013

8.15.1.2.11*   Concealed spaces in which the exposed materials are constructed entirely of fire retardant–treated wood as defined by NFPA 703 shall not require sprinkler protection.

Should read the same in previous,, has to be pressure treated, and not treated on site


----------



## ICE (Oct 3, 2015)

I should probably keep quiet.  Just because I don't know much about the NFPA stuff.  But we require a sprinkler head that provides coverage of any furnace located in a single family residential attic.  So far as I have experienced, the rest of the attic has no sprinklers.

Other attics or concealed spaces always get coverage.  I don't think that I have seen an attic that could qualify under the #4 exception.

The Fire Dept. handles the inspections.

What I find to be odd is the plastic pipe that is used for sprinkler systems.

In high risk fire zones, there should be sprinklers on the exterior.

Here in Ca. the insurance companies are planning on dropping coverage for any building even remotely at risk of a forest/brush fire. That's a lot of buildings.

That could prove to be a benefit for me because all of those property owners will be forced to buy insurance from the same state mandated plan that I am in.  If enough do that the cost should come down.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 3, 2015)

NFPA 13R requires a sprinkler head above a fuel fired appliance no matter where it is located. Just went through this this week with a contractor. I will have to check NFPA 13 on Monday


----------



## RFDACM02 (Oct 10, 2015)

ICE said:
			
		

> What I find to be odd is the plastic pipe that is used for sprinkler systems.


 Here's a little firefighter training evolution that explains the above: take two plastic ziplock bags. Hold one up and put a light below it (get ready to submerge it in water). Now take the second one, fill it with water and do the same thing. The water absorbs the heat and will greatly extend the time the plastic can withstand the heat. The fact that the heads should fuse before the area reaches the temperature that the pipe fails also will help immensely. As for the OP's question, here the NFPA 13 regulation "overrules" any other lesser protection. Our State Fire Marshal's Office must approve all sprinkler designs and they review them for NFPA only.


----------



## IJHumberson (Oct 27, 2015)

steveray,

Sorry I'm a little late to this party, but IMHO the IBC section referenced in your original post allows exemption of sprinklers where NFPA 13 would otherwise require them. The way that Section 903.1.1 is written, it says that sprinklers have to be installed per NFPA 13, EXCEPT as provided in 903.1.1.1. So NFPA 13 doesn't "trump" the four stated exempt locations.

HOWEVER, the big caveat is that item #4 applies to "noncombustible construction" with "wholly noncombustible contents" - Fire retardant treated plywood is commonly referred to as "noncombustible wood", but by code definition it is limited combustible. This, then requires that the NFPA 13 exemptions are all that can be allowed - Per 8.15.1.2.2 of NFPA 13 (2013 ed.), concealed spaces of noncombustible and limited combustible construction with limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage of combustibles are allowed to be non-sprinklered. The key to this, though, is that there are no significant amounts of combustibles (nonmetallic pipe, wiring, etc.) within that space - if there are any significant amounts of combustibles, the space is required to be sprinklered, regardless of the type of construction.


----------



## cda (Oct 27, 2015)

O



			
				IJHumberson said:
			
		

> steveray,Sorry I'm a little late to this party, but IMHO the IBC section referenced in your original post allows exemption of sprinklers where NFPA 13 would otherwise require them. The way that Section 903.1.1 is written, it says that sprinklers have to be installed per NFPA 13, EXCEPT as provided in 903.1.1.1. So NFPA 13 doesn't "trump" the four stated exempt locations.
> 
> HOWEVER, the big caveat is that item #4 applies to "noncombustible construction" with "wholly noncombustible contents" - Fire retardant treated plywood is commonly referred to as "noncombustible wood", but by code definition it is limited combustible. This, then requires that the NFPA 13 exemptions are all that can be allowed - Per 8.15.1.2.2 of NFPA 13 (2013 ed.), concealed spaces of noncombustible and limited combustible construction with limited access and not permitting occupancy or storage of combustibles are allowed to be non-sprinklered. The key to this, though, is that there are no significant amounts of combustibles (nonmetallic pipe, wiring, etc.) within that space - if there are any significant amounts of combustibles, the space is required to be sprinklered, regardless of the type of construction.


Check

NFPA 13 2013

8.15.1.2.11* Concealed spaces in which the exposed materials are constructed entirely of fire retardant–treated wood as defined by NFPA 703 shall not require sprinkler protection.


----------



## steveray (Oct 27, 2015)

Thanks Guys!....They got out of it, my take was that the IBC does not trump NFPA 13 in this instance, but my FM was thinking it did...Just seems like there are WAAAY to many exceptions in that part of NFPA 13 for omitting coverage in the "limited combustible" and other gray areas for my liking...I now have a limited combustible attic, with no sprinklers, that passes over both exit stair shafts. IF there ever could be that kind of fire in that attic, no one will get out of the building....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 27, 2015)

steveray said:
			
		

> Thanks Guys!....They got out of it, my take was that the IBC does not trump NFPA 13 in this instance,...I now have a limited combustible attic, with no sprinklers, that passes over both exit stair shafts. IF there ever could be that kind of fire in that attic, no one will get out of the building....


713.12 Enclosure at top.

A shaft enclosure that does not extend to the underside of the roof sheathing, deck or slab of the building shall be enclosed at the top with construction of the same fire-resistance rating as the topmost floor penetrated by the shaft, but not less than the fire-resistance rating required for the shaft enclosure.


----------



## cda (Oct 27, 2015)

steveray said:
			
		

> Thanks Guys!....They got out of it, my take was that the IBC does not trump NFPA 13 in this instance, but my FM was thinking it did...Just seems like there are WAAAY to many exceptions in that part of NFPA 13 for omitting coverage in the "limited combustible" and other gray areas for my liking...I now have a limited combustible attic, with no sprinklers, that passes over both exit stair shafts. IF there ever could be that kind of fire in that attic, no one will get out of the building....


Yes and No,

You start with IBC to see if a fire sprinkler is required,

If required than you go to NFPA 13 to see how to install it.

Yes in IBC, there are some exceptions that are not in NFPA 13,

BUT, for combustible areas NFPA 13 should rule.

I would say Item 4 below does not apply to an attic area.

""""""

903.3.1.1.1 Exempt locations. [F]

Automatic sprinklers shall not be required in the following rooms or areas where such rooms or areas are protected with an approved automatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 907.2 that will respond to visible or invisible particles of combustion. Sprinklers shall not be omitted from any room merely because it is damp, of fire-resistance-rated construction or contains electrical equipment.

 1. Any room where the application of water, or flame and water, constitutes a serious life or fire hazard.

 2. Any room or space where sprinklers are considered undesirable because of the nature of the contents, when approved by the building official.

 3. Generator and transformer rooms separated from the remainder of the building by walls and floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assemblies having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours.

 4. In rooms or areas that are of noncombustible construction with wholly noncombustible contents.""""""""""


----------



## cda (Oct 27, 2015)

""""""""I now have a limited combustible attic, with no sprinklers"""""""""""

""""""IF there ever could be that kind of fire in that attic, no one will get out of the building""""""""

I am thinking the boat was missed on this one.

Has it been built yet??


----------



## JBI (Oct 27, 2015)

Does anyone read Chapter 1?

*A] 102.4.1 Conflicts.   *

Where conflicts occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.


----------



## cda (Oct 27, 2015)

JBI said:
			
		

> Does anyone read Chapter 1? *A] 102.4.1 Conflicts.   *
> 
> Where conflicts occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.


where there is a conflict

102.1 General. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.


----------



## cda (Oct 27, 2015)

Plus nfpa 13,is referenced in IBC


----------

