# Sprinklers required, A-3 Occupancy



## DwightB (Apr 13, 2010)

2006 IBC:

I'm working with a church, so dealing with A-3 occupancy. Section [F] 903.2.1 says for Group A occupancy says "automatic sprinkler system SHALL be provided ... throughout the floor area where Group A is located...and all floors from the Group A occupancy to and including the level of exit discharge".

This seems to cover any and all occurrences. I don't see the need for [F] 903.2.1.3 which adds "automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group A-3 where ONE of the following conditions exist: 1. The fire area exceeds 12,000 sf. Note: The previous paragraph already said "THROUGHOUT ALL FLOORS of Group A", so this was already covered. 2. The fire area has an occupant load of 300 or more. Note: The previous paragraph already said "THROUGHOUT ALL FLOORS of Group A", so this also was already covered. 3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies. Note: The previous paragraph already said "in all floors from the Group A occupancy to and including the nearest level of exit discharge serving the Group A occupancy", so this also was already covered.

So my question is: If [F] 903.2.1 already covered ALL situations, why did they specify in [F] 903.2.1.3 that there are special situations where a special need exists?


----------



## Coug Dad (Apr 13, 2010)

903.2.1 requires sprinklers in Group A occupancies "AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION".

Section 903.2.1.1 through 903.2.1.5 are the "as provided"


----------



## cda (Apr 13, 2010)

because of the different types of A-3's and different sizes they could be???

and as stated by CD


----------



## FredK (Apr 13, 2010)

Agree with Cougdad and cda.

Since yours is a church (A-3) you need to be reading 903.2.1.3 Group A-3 requirements.  Any of those fit you need a sprinkler system.  Amazing how some churches become smaller than 300 when that gets applied.


----------



## AegisFPE (Apr 13, 2010)

Similar language is in 905.1, "Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings...in accordance with this section."  That last part's important.

While in that section, though IBC Section 905.4 may appear to indicate in Item 1 that a hose connection must be provided in every stairway, the hose connection section should only be applicable where a standpipe system is required.

Without that last phrase in 905.1 it could be interpreted that every building with a stair may require a standpipe system to serve those hose connections!


----------



## Glennman CBO (Apr 14, 2010)

If it's under occupant load of 300...sprinklers not required. If under 12000 sq ft, none required.

The code always words the worst case scenerio first, then either states exceptions, or provisions why they are not required.

Look at the "provisions" in this case as exceptions. The code is stating that they are not required under certain circumstances, even though it just stated that they are required.


----------



## Plans Approver (Apr 14, 2010)

Don't overlook that if sprinklers are required throughout by other provisions of the code, usually using the words "equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler

system in accordance with Section *903.3.1.1*". Such as height and area increases (504.2, 506.3, 507.6) then the exceptions in 903.2.1.3 do not apply.  It results in a building that is not equipped "throughout".


----------



## DwightB (Apr 14, 2010)

Disagree.  The "as provided" is stated as "shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12" and therefore DOES include the 903.2.1 which includes ""throughout buildings used as Group A" and "all floors of Group A.. and including, the nearest level of exit discharge" statement.  Only the Group A-5 has a separate sentence "For A-5 occupancies, the automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in spaces indicated in Section 903.2.1.5.  There is no sentence that says A-3 occupancies shall be as provided in 903.2.1.3, so I believe 903.2.1 dominates.  This may not have been their intent, but this is what they have stated.


----------



## DwightB (Apr 14, 2010)

903.2.1.1 to 903.2.1.5 are not listed as exceptions to 903.2.1  I don't see how 903.2.1.1 through 903.2.1.4 can trump 903.2.1 as it is written.  Group A-5 is treated separately.


----------



## Coug Dad (Apr 14, 2010)

903.2.1 requires sprinklers in Group A occupancies "AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION".

Section 903.2.1.1 through 903.2.1.5 are the "as provided"


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 14, 2010)

Dwight I have a church with 2400 sq ft per floor, total fire area of 4800 sq ft, both floors exit at the level of discharge, total occupant load of 240, are you saying I need a sprinkler per 903.2.1 Group A.?

Or I do not need a sprinkler per 903.2.1.3 Group A-3.?

Just trying to understand you original question.


----------



## DwightB (Apr 14, 2010)

mtlogcabin: I believe the code says both, therefore is self-conflicted.  I believe they intended to write 903.2.1.3 as the "as provided", but only A-5 actually has an "as provided" qualifier in 903.2.1.  As a result, because A-3 is identified in both areas, and we must choose the most restrictive, as demanded universally by code.  I'd like to post this one directly to ICCsafe and see how they talk their way out of this rationalization.


----------



## kilitact (Apr 15, 2010)

DwightB said:
			
		

> mtlogcabin: I believe the code says both, therefore is self-conflicted.  I believe they intended to write 903.2.1.3 as the "as provided", but only A-5 actually has an "as provided" qualifier in 903.2.1.  As a result, because A-3 is identified in both areas, and we must choose the most restrictive, as demanded universally by code.  I'd like to post this one directly to ICCsafe and see how they talk their way out of this rationalization.


go back and read the first sentence in section 903.2.1, "as provided in this section". agree with others above


----------



## Coug Dad (Apr 15, 2010)

Sorry Dwight, you are just wrong.


----------



## High Desert (Apr 16, 2010)

DwightB, ICC will tell you the same thing that everyone else on this post is telling you.


----------



## DwightB (Apr 16, 2010)

Thx to all on this one; I'll cry "uncle" here.


----------



## allis_ch (Apr 18, 2010)

I see that everybody here gave the same info as I posted on the ICC site


----------



## Gene Boecker (Apr 19, 2010)

DwightB said:
			
		

> Thx to all on this one; I'll cry "uncle" here.


Dwight, sounds like you have a good case for a code change to clarify the intent.  And, lucky you, you have 22 months to prepare what it will look like!


----------



## Glennman CBO (Apr 20, 2010)

While I disagree with Dwight's (original) interpretation of the section, he does have a point as to how it is worded. However, I believe the reason that A-5 has its own "qualifier" is due to the fact that it is the only one that has uses specified within the main body of its section (hence the wording of 903.2.1 "in the spaces indicated"), where otherwise they hinge on areas and occupant loads. The only other uses mentioned in the other sections are only in their respective exceptions within the context of their own sections.


----------

