# Fire Sprinkler for Exterior Walk-In Freezer



## texasbo (Jun 11, 2010)

Would like to know how the group would handle this:

Type VB, A2, Restaurant, required to be fire sprinklered. No exterior wall rating requirements. Owner wants to add an exterior walk in freezer to back of building. Opening will be cut in exterior wall of building to access freezer. Freezer is a fully self-contained mechanical unit; no building structure would be built around or over it.

Who feels the fire sprinkler must be extended into the unit?

I know there are other forums where this might be more appropriate, but there is more traffic here.

As always, thanks in advance for your opinions.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 11, 2010)

Because it's required

Since access into the freezer is through the protected property; the freezer is required to be sprinkled in accordance with NFPA 13



_4.1 Level of Protection._

_A building, where protected by an automatic sprinkler system installation, shall be provided with sprinklers in all areas except where specific sections of this standard permit the omission of sprinklers._ 

And 8.1.1 and A8.1.1.1 This standard contemplates full sprinkler protection for all areas including walk-in coolers, *freezers*, bank vaults, and similar areas.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 11, 2010)

From what I've seen and heard in the past, if the cooler is self-supporting and outside the building envelope, sprinklers have not been required to be extended into that space.

From what I've seen if a fire were to start in the cooler, it would burn through the roof to the atmosphere before breaching the cooler door.

I'm not sure I can point to a section that says this. Hopefully someone else can.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 11, 2010)

I have never seen a section in the standard associated to that Gene but I have always evaluated that as a detached structure not meeting the requirements for protection unless the s.f. gets to the point for consideration as applicable.


----------



## texasbo (Jun 11, 2010)

Thanks Gene, that's my interpretation as well.

The NFPA sections as quoted by Mr Burns are not applicable, because the freezer is not in the building. If it were, I would agree 100%.

Would still appreciate input from other members.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 11, 2010)

BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. So isn't the freezer a structure?

Opening will be cut in exterior wall of building to access freezer. Now doen't this make the freezer walls the exterior of the building?

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or fire-resistance-rated horizontal assemblies of a building.

Now isn't the freezer now part of the building?


----------



## cda (Jun 11, 2010)

sprinkle it, becasue you can access it from inside the building, or inside of cooler catches fire, spreads into building.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 11, 2010)

cda said:
			
		

> sprinkle it, becasue you can access it from inside the building, or inside of cooler catches fire, spreads into building.


So, if there's no door into the building; but a person has to walk outside and then into the cooler, it's OK?

When is it a piece of equipment and when is it part of the building?

mtlogcabin, there has to be reason in the application of that definition.

If people have to wait outside the "dairy freeze" at a walk-up counter does the sidewalk become a building because it is supporting a use?

More importantly, where's the empirical data that shows this is a problem?


----------



## mark handler (Jun 11, 2010)

For California DSA projects,

An automatic fire sprinkler system is required for WIF/CSB units that are housed in or adjacent to a building protected or required to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.


----------



## texasbo (Jun 11, 2010)

All: Thanks for your input. The diversity of opinions is exactly why I posed the question. Is it part of the building, or is it a piece of mechanical equipment? As I said, I agree with Gene, but everyone else makes good arguments as well. The best solution is the one posted by Mark, but alas, we don't have such an amendment. Again, I appreciate and respect everyone's opinions.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 11, 2010)

> More importantly, where's the empirical data that shows this is a problem?


I don't know if it is a problem or not. I just know they are typically made of 4 inches of foam plastic and this one is setting next to a V-B building and it is a structure under the building code. If the AHJ wants to include it in the fire area of the building because of the direct access into the building it is his/her call.



> From what I've seen if a fire were to start in the cooler, it would burn through the roof to the atmosphere before breaching the cooler door.


If it is next to the building to allow a direct access door chances are it is under the restaurant's roof eave/overhang


----------



## texasbo (Jun 11, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I don't know if it is a problem or not. I just know they are typically made of 4 inches of foam plastic and this one is setting next to a V-B building and it is a structure under the building code. If the AHJ wants to include it in the fire area of the building because of the direct access into the building it is his/her call.If it is next to the building to allow a direct access door chances are it is under the restaurant's roof eave/overhang


mtlogcabin: As stated in OP, it has no building structure over or beside it. Also, as a follow up to your earlier post, let me ask this: I am assuming that you would consider the freezer to be part of the fire area of the main building. If so, if the main building was Type I construction, would you require the "structure" of the freezer to be rated construction? Not being smart, just trying to play this out as far as I can to see what really needs to be done. Thanks again for the discussion.


----------



## peach (Jun 11, 2010)

I say no.. the existing building code, I believe, allows for unsprinklered portions of the "building"... and I don't know that I'd call the cooler part of the building.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 11, 2010)

I am assuming that the freezing of the sprinkler lines will not cuse any problem with the water flow.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 11, 2010)

> The NFPA sections as quoted by Mr Burns are not applicable, because the freezer is not in the building. If it were, I would agree 100%.


 

It’s not only applicable it’s mandated as referenced previously.  The access to the cooler is through the required protected fire area which increases the fire area as MT provided.  Provide a rated fire resistive exterior wall and rated opening protection and I would have to consider however in the hundreds I have inspected and regulated, this has yet been achieved.  





> So, if there's no door into the building; but a person has to walk outside and then into the cooler, it's OK?When is it a piece of equipment and when is it part of the building?


 

Yes and it’s a storage occupancy if one wants to get technical about it and since access is through the protected fire area it’s an increase in total fire area and if the fire area is required to be sprinkled and the freezer does not meet the excepted criteria for coverage, as the standard says it must be included in coverage.  



The section does not exclude the OP example unless it is a detached separate structure.







> I am assuming that the freezing of the sprinkler lines will not cuse any problem with the water flow.


      The standard is specific how to protect refrigerated spaces and accounts for that potential.


----------



## cda (Jun 11, 2010)

Is it part of the building, or is it a piece of mechanical equipment?

both


----------



## brudgers (Jun 12, 2010)

My take, it doesn't need to be sprinklered if it is a separate structure.  So put up a fire wall or build two appropriately rated exterior walls.

Or sprinkle it as part of a single structure.

The fact that it's manufactured as a unit makes it no more a piece of equipment than a pre-engineered metal building.


----------



## cda (Jun 12, 2010)

a canopy is not inside a building, but we sprinkle that every once in ahwhile, and it may only have a wall  on one side

Sorry, I require everything to be sprinkled and let God, or my supervisor sort it out


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 12, 2010)

*brudgers*

My take exactly!


----------



## brudgers (Jun 12, 2010)

Figures, since I read your post before I replied.


----------



## fireguy (Jun 13, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> I am assuming that the freezing of the sprinkler lines will not cuse any problem with the water flow.


Mark,  can you have the supply pipe in a warm area?  If not, you should look at antifreeze loops 13-2010  7.6, 7.9.2, 8.1.2 or a dry system 13-2010  7.2  for the supply piping. Make sure the dry system has auxillary drains to get rid of condenstion If you can run the pipe in a warm area, you will still need dry heads. A wet system can supply a dry system if the wet pipe is sized properly. 13-2010 7.1.3.


----------



## texasbo (Jun 14, 2010)

Thanks to all who respoded; I appreciate the discussion.


----------



## cda (Jun 14, 2010)

as my grandmother told me on her dieing bed,         boy you are dealing with two books,        I -codes and NFPA 13


----------



## texasbo (Jun 14, 2010)

I could have used Granny on my team; she sounds like she was quite the code scholar.

Bet she didn't spend half the workday on Facebook...


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 14, 2010)

BTW:

Many jurisdictions have banned "facebook" and have installed spyware on networks and employees work stations to address lost time.  Participating in a work related media like this one is acceptable in some and classified and tracked as training.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 14, 2010)

Exactly the way things are in my office.


----------



## Examiner (Jun 14, 2010)

Barracuda is what the office I work in installed.  Now what are you going to do about lost work time in texting on the phones and surfing on the phones?


----------



## brudgers (Jun 14, 2010)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Exactly the way things are in my office.


A complete waste of time and energy that could be better invested in making the work engaging.

Sent (metaphorically) from my iPhone.


----------

