# Offsets or incentives for Sprinklers?



## Vibrato (Jan 18, 2012)

Been lurking here for a while, 1st post though. Great forums!

My Board Chairman has had some fire guys telling him that the inclusion of sprinklers in the code increases the safety factor such that there are other requirements that have been relaxed to help offset the cost. he has asked me to provide a list...

So far I'm not finding much- (2012 IRC) R501.3- allows for the ½ inch gypsum required for fire protection under floor framing for engineered joists to be excepted. (Engineered joists not specifically mentioned)

*R314.5  allows multiple smoke alarms to be “interconnected” through a wireless system of alarms. My guess is that this is a response to the new technology and NOT specific to the inclusion of smoke alarms. Do you agree? (The alarms still are required to have the primary power source from the building electrical system. No change there.)

Since my Code Interpretation and Significant Changes books won't be here for a couple of days, I thought I'd ask here. Thanks for any help!!


----------



## fatboy (Jan 18, 2012)

Allows the reduction from two to one hours for the townhouse separation also.

Welcome to the forum, glad you jumped it!

Where are you at, what codes are you on?

And, get ready, don't be thin skinned, this has been beat to death from all angles.....search "residential fire sprinklers" or combinations of, plenty of topics and opinions.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 18, 2012)

Welcome to the board.

While you may find some equivalencies based upon sprinklers in single family construction, they would not offset the cost of the sprinkler system.  Like Fatboy said, lots of good threads on this board regarding residential fire sprinklers.  Of course, everyone has their own opinion based upon their personal experience.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

The major offset would probably be on insurance premiums, and they vary greatly. And are highly unlikely to offset the cost. Fire guys are just giving you the party line.


----------



## rnapier (Jan 18, 2012)

I don't think wireless systems are new since the 2009 IRC had this

R314.2 Smoke detection systems. Household fire alarm systems installed in accordance with NFPA 72 that include smoke alarms...

and NFPA 2007 allowed low-power wireless household alarm systems.


----------



## Vibrato (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm the BO for Rock Island County, Illinois, we're on the 09's.

I don't want to argue the positive/negatives- SHEESH, Doods- that's been done EVERY WHERE and most of what gets mentioned is so exagerated the truth is buried in unreasonableness. (Actual conversation- Contractor- "The water supply won't handle all these sprinklers!"- Me- "Uh, there's a fire plug on every street corner. Wonder what those are for if the water supply won't handle a fire?") Aaaanyway...

I'm looking for specific requirements that may have been relaxed PER CODE, with references between the 03/06 IRC (no Sprinklers) to the 09/12 IRC (with Sprinklers) in single family detached dwellings.

My searches so far has only come up with the por-con arguments Ad-Nauseum, and not so much on things that may not be required but were before.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jan 18, 2012)

I have had insurance people tell me the premium would actually be higher because the reduction for fire insurance would be offset by insurance for accidental water release from the sprinkler system.


----------



## mjesse (Jan 18, 2012)

As far as I know, there have been no items removed/relaxed from the Codes since the inclusion of RFS.

Someone may prove otherwise, but I haven't seen it.

I think the drywall under floor systems was new with the 09's, so that doesn't really count as a "cost saver"

And welcome to THE forum!!

mj


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> I have had insurance people tell me the premium would actually be higher because the reduction for fire insurance would be offset by insurance for accidental water release from the sprinkler system.


  Depends on the carrier.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

Vibrato said:
			
		

> I'm the BO for Rock Island County, Illinois, we're on the 09's.   I don't want to argue the positive/negatives- SHEESH, Doods- that's been done EVERY WHERE and most of what gets mentioned is so exagerated the truth is buried in unreasonableness. (Actual conversation- Contractor- "The water supply won't handle all these sprinklers!"- Me- "Uh, there's a fire plug on every street corner. Wonder what those are for if the water supply won't handle a fire?") Aaaanyway...   I'm looking for specific requirements that may have been relaxed PER CODE, with references between the 03/06 IRC (no Sprinklers) to the 09/12 IRC (with Sprinklers) in single family detached dwellings.  My searches so far has only come up with the por-con arguments Ad-Nauseum, and not so much on things that may not be required but were before.


  Well, once they are required, the offset is that you can get a permit.


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 18, 2012)

I believe that fatboy is correct and the 2hr rating between townhomes has been dropped to a one hour common wall.


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 18, 2012)

Welcome to the forum Vibrato, upon occasion I get up to Moline, and they've only thrown me out once.


----------



## globe trekker (Jan 18, 2012)

rnapier & Vibrato,

Welcome to the Building Codes Forum!  

.


----------



## rktect 1 (Jan 18, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I believe that fatboy is correct and the 2hr rating between townhomes has been dropped to a one hour common wall.


Not exactly.  The 2009 allows for a 1 hour common wall without mech and plumb inside the wall whereas the 2006 never allowed a 1 hr "common wall" but two separate 1 hour common walls.  This is well illustrated in the 2006 code commentary.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I believe that fatboy is correct and the 2hr rating between townhomes has been dropped to a one hour common wall.


  What is a "townhome?"


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 18, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What is a "townhome?"


So sorry, "townhouse" "townhome".

Shall we wax philosophical for I have often wondered just what a brudgers is?

This quote from Tacitus says alot.

"Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."


----------



## north star (Jan 18, 2012)

*= =*

Vibrato & rnapier,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum! 

One incentive for the RFS is an increased protection of the human resources,

[ i.e. - an increase in the time for Search & Rescue Ops., while inside a

burning structure, or whether or not to enter a burning structure at all ].

We DID have a rather length discussion; and a long rant from me, on RFS.

Sorry, I cannot seem to locate that particular thread right now.....It WAS

on this forum though!.....Maybe one of the other esteemed forum members

can locate it and post a link.

Also, we had a discussion of the transition from the `06 codes to the `09

codes and the effect of "new" sprinkler requirements, awhile back....See

this link:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5477-Transitioning-from-IBC-2006-to-IBC-2009&highlight=residential+fire+sprinklers

*= =*


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 18, 2012)

2009 IRC

Exception: A common 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 34 through 43. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4.

2006 IRC

Exception: A common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 33 through 42. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R317.3.

http://www.biaw.com/documents/09%20Matrix.pdf

The code now recognizes UL263 as an equivalent teststandard to ASTM E 119 forfire-resistance. A common 1hour fire resistance rated wallsatisfies the townhouse
​separation requirements.


----------



## Vibrato (Jan 18, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *= =*Vibrato & rnapier,
> 
> Also, we had a discussion of the transition from the `06 codes to the `09
> 
> ...


IRC? That link looks like a VERY NICE discussion of the IBC, and I love reading those types of threads because it can take days worth of research and knock it down to the really good stuff quickly- so I've bookmarked it for later perusal- but I didn't see much on the IRC... Is there a different thread?


----------



## north star (Jan 18, 2012)

*= =*

Vibrato,

From the `09 IRC:

*R101.2 Scope.* The provisions of the _International Residential Code_

_for One- and Two-family Dwellings_ shall apply to the construction,

_alteration_, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment,

use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached

one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three

stories above _grade plane_ in height with a separate means of

egress and their _accessory structures_. 

*Exception:* Live/work units complying with the requirements of

Section 419 of the _International Building Code_ shall be permitted

to be built as one-and two-family _dwellings_  or townhouses.

Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the _International_

_Building Code,_  when constructed under the _International_

_Residential Code for One-and Two-family Dwellings, _ shall

conform to Section 903.3.1.3 of the _International Building Code_. 

*= =*


----------



## permitguy (Jan 18, 2012)

Welcome!



> My Board Chairman has had some fire guys telling him that the inclusion of sprinklers in the code increases the safety factor such that there are other requirements that have been relaxed to help offset the cost.


IMO, the fire guys in question have it backwards.  The "other requirements" have been slowly relaxed over the course of the last couple/few decades, and it's RFS that is increasing the safety factor to where it used to be.  Examples include allowance for the use of lightweight engineered construction components; modern architectural features such as open floor plans, vaulted ceilings, etc.; and modern synthetic materials from cabinetry and appliances to finish materials and furnishings.  It is no secret that flashover is occuring and structures are failing much more quickly than in the past.

I can't think of trade-offs that would come anywhere near off-setting the cost of sprinkler installation.

I assume you've already heard all the arguments for and against, but I suspect that won't keep them from being repeated here.  Cue forensics and incognito!


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> So sorry, "townhouse" "townhome".  Shall we wax philosophical for I have often wondered just what a brudgers is? This quote from Tacitus says alot. "Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."


  The difference between a townhouse [typically R3] and a townhome [typically R2] is pretty significant.  It's like the difference between 13D and 13R.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2009 IRC Exception: A common 1-hour fire-resistance-rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 34 through 43. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4.  2006 IRC Exception: A common 2-hour fire-resistance-rated wall is permitted for townhouses if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the cavity of the common wall. Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 33 through 42. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R317.3.  http://www.biaw.com/documents/09%20Matrix.pdf The code now recognizes UL263 as an equivalent teststandard to ASTM E 119 forfire-resistance. A common 1hour fire resistance rated wallsatisfies the townhouse
> ​separation requirements.


  The cost difference between a properly constructed 1 hour common wall and a properly constructed 2 hour common wall is likely to be negligible compared to the cost of sprinklers.  pennies v dollars


----------



## rktect 1 (Jan 18, 2012)

Pennies sometimes do add up to dollars.  But I don't think so in this case.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 18, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The cost difference between a properly constructed 1 hour common wall and a properly constructed 2 hour common wall is likely to be negligible compared to the cost of sprinklers.  pennies v dollars


Agree

But to reduce the 2 hour requirement to 1 hour because sprinklers are required is silly especially if they are supplied by the potable water system that is turned off on every vacant house and even here when the snowbirds head south for the winter.

nothing in the code requires them to be operational 24-7-365 when the home is not occupied.


----------



## Vibrato (Jan 18, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> IMO, the fire guys in question have it backwards.  The "other requirements" have been slowly relaxed over the course of the last couple/few decades, and it's RFS that is increasing the safety factor to where it used to be.  Examples include allowance for the use of lightweight engineered construction components; modern architectural features such as open floor plans, vaulted ceilings, etc.; and modern synthetic materials from cabinetry and appliances to finish materials and furnishings.  It is no secret that flashover is occuring and structures are failing much more quickly than in the past.
> 
> I can't think of trade-offs that would come anywhere near off-setting the cost of sprinkler installation.


I think you just may have nailed it here. And brudgers- "the offset is that they can get a permit..." HA! Dead on! I love it.

I don't want to get too far off track, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something obvious- Since We're talking Single Family DETACHED dwellings where any non-residential use would be less than 50% of the total area, the IRC would apply. (Over here by the Big Muddy, an IBC R-3 townhouse would be classified as a "Really Tall Duplex")  :cheers

Thanks everyone- I feel like you have reinforced my findings here. In the interest of full disclosure- I am not personally opposed to residential sprinklers although I realize there is a cost. I am not necessarily a supporter of requiring them locally mainly due to the PITA it will be to implement. Our local contractors get mad at me every time they lose a foundation because they can't seem to remember to put the deck on before backfilling, let alone provide a complete set of submittals. ("You said the foundation was ok!"- "Yes I did, but I did not give approval for backfilling- these are two seperate things.")

Time will tell if Illinois amends the sprinklers out as some states have, or leaves them in. Either way I will reccomend to my board that we follow our local ICC chapters (ILLOWA) recomendation for the area, which we're still working on, but I think we're leaning towards keeping them in.

Thanks for all the responses, I can see lurking here more often!


----------



## fatboy (Jan 18, 2012)

Don't lurk! Continue to contribute, the more the merrier!


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Agree  But to reduce the 2 hour requirement to 1 hour because sprinklers are required is silly especially if they are supplied by the potable water system that is turned off on every vacant house and even here when the snowbirds head south for the winter. nothing in the code requires them to be operational 24-7-365 when the home is not occupied.


  Well, that and the fact that 13D sprinklers don't protect structures.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2012)

Vibrato said:
			
		

> I think you just may have nailed it here. And brudgers- "the offset is that they can get a permit..." HA! Dead on! I love it.  I don't want to get too far off track, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something obvious- Since We're talking Single Family DETACHED dwellings where any non-residential use would be less than 50% of the total area, the IRC would apply. (Over here by the Big Muddy, an IBC R-3 townhouse would be classified as a "Really Tall Duplex")  :cheers   Thanks everyone- I feel like you have reinforced my findings here. In the interest of full disclosure- I am not personally opposed to residential sprinklers although I realize there is a cost. I am not necessarily a supporter of requiring them locally mainly due to the PITA it will be to implement. Our local contractors get mad at me every time they lose a foundation because they can't seem to remember to put the deck on before backfilling, let alone provide a complete set of submittals. ("You said the foundation was ok!"- "Yes I did, but I did not give approval for backfilling- these are two seperate things.")  Time will tell if Illinois amends the sprinklers out as some states have, or leaves them in. Either way I will reccomend to my board that we follow our local ICC chapters (ILLOWA) recomendation for the area, which we're still working on, but I think we're leaning towards keeping them in.  Thanks for all the responses, I can see lurking here more often!


  I'll just throw out my standard response to sprinklers in single family dwellings:  You could save an order of magnitude more lives by prohibiting stairs - dwelling falls kill many more times more people than dwelling fires...just look at the national fire statistics.


----------



## JBI (Jan 18, 2012)

Welcome to the board Vibrato.

There are more offsets in the Building Code for installing sprinklers than you will ever find in the Res Code.

I too am on the RFS fence, so to speak. I live in a rural area with few water districts. Most RFS would require a tank and pump system. While the added expense is relatively small (closer to the 5% cost of construction than 2%), there is a reliability issue with regard to the delivery system. Pumps require power. In a blackout or other power interruption? Public water supplies tend to be more reliable.


----------



## mmmarvel (Jan 19, 2012)

Worked in a jurisdiction (once) where a builder petitioned to include residential sprinklers in each dwelling (all new homes) and as a trade off, the city allowed for distance between dwellings to be less AND the width of the street to be less.  So the 'trade-off' was dwellings closer to each other, more chance of setting your neighbor on fire from your fire AND more difficult to get the fire engine on the street (on street parking was prohibited) in exchange for the dwellings having residential sprinklers.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2012)

mmmarvel said:
			
		

> Worked in a jurisdiction (once) where a builder petitioned to include residential sprinklers in each dwelling (all new homes) and as a trade off, the city allowed for distance between dwellings to be less AND the width of the street to be less.  So the 'trade-off' was dwellings closer to each other, more chance of setting your neighbor on fire from your fire AND more difficult to get the fire engine on the street (on street parking was prohibited) in exchange for the dwellings having residential sprinklers.


  Fire fighting apparatus should be selected to best serve the community, not vice versa.


----------



## Vibrato (Jan 23, 2012)

JBI- I agree, lots more in the IBC. FYI- Most average sized homes on a well system can have a sprinkler system that meets the flow/pressure requirement with a 300-400 gallon tank- no elec backup for a pump needed. They only need to run 2 heads for 7 or 10 minutes depending on the size of the house to meet minimum code requirements.

I have found that asking about sprinklers is like asking about religion. The more you try to get reasonable information the more you are subjected to the extreme point of view. Gods a good dood, some of his supporters... not so much.

Kinda the same way with sprinkler pro's and con's. You can't ask about heaven without being lectured about how you're goin to hell.

When I build, I'll put'em in my house, but to require them? yeeesh.

I can't think of anymore abbrev's.

Thanks for the responses everyone!


----------



## beach (Jan 23, 2012)

In regard to the OP...... in California, one off the trade-offs was to reduce the sideyard setback from 5' to 3' for sprinklered homes, this was at the request of the building industry.....


----------



## AegisFPE (Jan 24, 2012)

I wish there was an exception in the IRC providing an alternative to sprinklers.

I think reasonable alternatives could include:


Increased smoke alarm requirements (e.g. enhanced detection technology {such as multi-sensor}) _and/or_

detection throughout home (e.g. in whatever spaces sprinklers would have been required) _and/or_ 
permanent means of self-rescue from sleeping rooms (e.g. room at grade level, EERO over deck with access to grade, or escape ladder permanently mounted to deploy {such as the P.E.A.R.L.})


----------

