# nfpa 13r



## cda (Jan 4, 2010)

Question from another board:::

To get to the point I cannot find any reference in NFPA 13R regarding system area limitation. Normally I would insist, based on NFPA 13 that a floor that is over 52,000 SQ.FT requires 2 risers, but this is an existing building where the other floors, all roughly over 71,000 SQ.FT., are already being supplied by one riser. I was about to yell foul, but figured I'd get all my info straight first, unfortunately I cannot find anything in NFPA 13R that says they cannot do so.

and the answer is::::::::


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

In the 2002 13R, I think your answer is in 6.7, specifically 6.7.1.2.  The design is based on the 4 sprinklers in a compartment that are the most hydraulically demanding, so the area per riser would be limited by that calculation.

Just a simple answer, but probably not that simple...


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

NFPA 13R (2010) Section 6.1 limits the system to 52,000 square feet.


----------



## cda (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

Thanks sounds like someone closed a loop hole


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



> Thanks sounds like someone closed a loop hole


Be careful, it's only closed if the adopted code references the correct standard

2010?

2006 IBC

NFPA

Standard

Reference

Number

13—02

13D—02

13R—02

2009 IBC

NFPA

Standard

Reference

Number

13—07

13D—07

13R—07


----------



## JBI (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

Therein lies the rub. Why can't the Codes just reference 'the most current version'? You'd think that if we trust these companies to write a standard, we should be willing to accept the most current one, who knows the subject better than those who write it?


----------



## jpranch (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

John, That is too simple and makes way to much sense!  :lol:


----------



## cda (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

We use to have that as an admendment and was taken out, because it was felt that the newer standards were not put out for public review and comment, and also not adopted formaly by the city.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> > Thanks sounds like someone closed a loop hole


Be careful, it's only closed if the adopted code references the correct standard

2010?

2006 IBC

NFPA

Standard

Reference

Number

13—02

13D—02

13R—02

2009 IBC

NFPA

Standard

Reference

Number

13—07

13D—07

13R—07

Hence my answer referencing the 2002 code...  :|


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Therein lies the rub. Why can't the Codes just reference 'the most current version'? You'd think that if we trust these companies to write a standard, we should be willing to accept the most current one, who knows the subject better than those who write it?


Actually the rub is, why does the ICC even exist when NFPA codes cover everything?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



> Why can't the Codes just reference 'the most current version'?


Think about that.

The code will reference a particular section number of a standard and not the whole thing. That section gets recodified and moved so the code is no longer addressing the original section.

Look at the 2003 IBC Section 1621. It specifically ammended portions of ASCE 7 02 Section 9 Which has become Section 13 in the ASCE 7 05 edition. So as JP has stated they are sticking with the 06 codes if they use the "current standard" they will be looking at the wrong requirements.

When the 06 referenced ASCE 7 05 edition the NFPA 13 02 did not meet the requirements of ASCE 7 05 for seismic resistance in the higher seismic zones NFPA 13 07 does in that case it would have made sense to reference the "most current" that is where i believe IBC 104.11 would allow the NFPA 13 07 edition to be used with the 06 IBC because it did meet the seismic design requirements of the ASCE 7 05 edition


----------



## jpranch (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

It gets even better. If you have a fire codes subscription and do the 2 yearly up-dates to stay current??? Well, you can take it from there. What a mess.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

Wow, you guys were busy today....that's what I get for going out in the cold and drawing buildings.

Regarding the process, come on now.....look at it like this......it keeps all us code geeks sharp and gets people to come to code development meetings  :lol:


----------



## JBI (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

brudgers - I'm not sure why the ICC exists (actually I know, but don't really care     ).

I'm still trying to figure out why NYS joined the fray (see above).

The National Fire Protection Association knows a lot about fire protection (and control), but should not be in the business of writing structural codes - not their function.

Same for plumbing, mechanical, property maintenance, energy efficiency...

Personally I liked the old NYS Code. Good book, relied on reference standards to a greater extent, although they DID have the same lag time on new editions of them.

mtlog - That's what I'm saying. Why reference a particular section of a particular year of a particular standard that often two or three cycles old? Why not just reference the applicable portion for the most current version. You can still provide a more restrictive element (in accordance with the current edition of... as modified herein).

Like jp said, too simple and makes too much sense.

F M - Imagine actually having time to enforce Code, instead of most of your time spent learning or studying 'changes'. When NYS started enforcing code requirements for H/C accessibility they actually published an annual book that charted the differences between ADA/ADAAG, ANSI and our State code reqs. Talk about a nightmare!

If you need to publish a book on the subject of cross-referencing three other books... THAT should be your first clue there is a problem.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> brudgers - I'm not sure why the ICC exists (actually I know, but don't really care     ).I'm still trying to figure out why NYS joined the fray (see above).
> 
> The National Fire Protection Association knows a lot about fire protection (and control), but should not be in the business of writing structural codes - not their function. .


The meat of the IBC structural requirements comes by reference (ASCE-7).  I wonder if NFPA 5000 did something similar?



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Same for plumbing, mechanical, property maintenance, energy efficiency...


Hmmm...who's code is missing from that list?

Could it be...*NFPA?*



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Personally I liked the old NYS Code. Good book, relied on reference standards to a greater extent, although they DID have the same lag time on new editions of them.


That's one of the issues with ICC.

They feel compelled to change requirements around every three years.

Most of the revisions to NFPA codes tend to be editorial...improved clarity, consistency, and ease of use.

They are very conservative when it comes to actually modifying requirements.

The ICC is the exact opposite, they never met a change they didn't like...particularly when it's inconsistent with NFPA or ADAAG.


----------



## cda (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

I though you all were going to be kinder, gentler this year, and sing Kum Ba Yah at least once a day!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



> Why not just reference the applicable portion for the most current version


How do you reference the applicable portion without refering to a number which can change when recodified?

Some of the legacy codes would just include the lanquage from the standard into the code. I don't know why this change except it is a way to sell more books for the orginizations who publish the standards


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



> it is a way to sell more books for the orginizations who publish the standards


One of the main reasons besides personal financial expense that I stopped being so active on the development committees in the majors.  I like what *brudgers* said and agree with the assessment.



> Most of the revisions to NFPA codes tend to be editorial...improved clarity, consistency, and ease of use.They are very conservative when it comes to actually modifying requirements.


*Now maybe someone would like to start a new topic in Code Administration to carry on a discussion of this nature :?: *


----------



## JBI (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

That particular part of brudgers statement I can agree with.

And _IF_ NFPA were the base codes for ICC _maybe_ there would be fewer changes for (what some perceive to be) changes sake.

I don't agree with every code change, nor do I agree with every code provision. That, in and of itself, does not mean it is a bad change or a bad provision.


----------



## jpranch (Jan 5, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r

icc (international cash cow) code changes are for sale to the highest bidder.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> That particular part of brudgers statement I can agree with. And _IF_ NFPA were the base codes for ICC _maybe_ there would be fewer changes for (what some perceive to be) changes sake.


The reason, I will opine, is that NFPA primarily changes their codes based on *experience* and knowledge derived from investigation.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 6, 2010)

Re: nfpa 13r



			
				jpranch said:
			
		

> icc (international cash cow) code changes are for sale to the highest bidder.


Amen


----------

