# NYS: Type IIB, B Occupancy Sprinkler (water) curtain



## Bobbi_O (May 11, 2017)

Hi all 

The architect's have designed glass wall partitions as non-rated class with a Sprinkler (water) curtain. I cannot find anywhere in the NYS Building / Fire code or NFPA where this can be used except for an atrium, and this is not an atrium. If anyone has had similar situations please let me know. Thanks

More detail: 
Type IIB, B Occupancy with 1 hour rated corridors and 1 hour rated walls in other areas for conference rooms. The rooms (other than conference) may be used as labs and may have different tenants so all of these spaces are separated. The designer has glass doors and windows within the rated partitions. Narrower sidelights to the labs are fire-rated, however the larger glass wall partitions to the conference rooms are not. The portion of the building where the non-rated glass is located is separated from the main corridor with fire doors. The 2nd floor area really doesn't require the fire rated separation since these areas are for common use to all tenants. The main level though has a non-rated glass to a reception area which is in the means of egress to the buildings main entrance.


----------



## cda (May 11, 2017)

Have nice architect cite code section they are pulling it from


----------



## Bobbi_O (May 11, 2017)

cda said:


> Have nice architect cite code section they are pulling it from


I'm trying that too. Thanks


----------



## cda (May 11, 2017)

Alternative design?


----------



## Bobbi_O (May 11, 2017)

cda said:


> Alternative design?


Trying to have the architect explain their interpretation to me. If there is an alternate design and another way to view this I'm open to listening. There are other issue with this design and it's going out t o bid soon. Oh well


----------



## cda (May 11, 2017)

They can propose a request through the building code an alternative equal design


----------



## cda (May 11, 2017)

Are you the ahj?

If so write something like

Provide one hour wall or listed one hour opening protection


----------



## steveray (May 11, 2017)

In table 601 there is an allowable sprinkler for 1hr construction substitution, but that would be needed with IIB.....Can you explain why the rooms are required to be rated? Typically wouldn't rate a conference room....


----------



## Bobbi_O (May 11, 2017)

steveray said:


> In table 601 there is an allowable sprinkler for 1hr construction substitution, but that would be needed with IIB.....Can you explain why the rooms are required to be rated? Typically wouldn't rate a conference room....


Yes I agree but since these are tenants (our other code official here looks at these as tenant spaces) feels they should be separated. The architect shows these as rated rooms for now. The 2nd floor I would agree should be non-separated and a rating would not be required. The main level though, since it is in the main egress (like an exit passageway), I want it separated from the reception area. There is also a staircase (another long story) that does not exit to the outside but through this area. So the lower level I will demand rated glass.


----------



## Bobbi_O (May 11, 2017)

PS We also do not know who the tenants will be at this point. The labs we are keeping separated and rated but the conference rooms on the 2nd floor I agree will not need to be separated as per the code.


----------



## steveray (May 12, 2017)

In a sprinklered B building, the corridor rating goes away...Table 1018.1 and no "tenant" separation should be required unless a different use...


----------



## Sifu (May 12, 2017)

I have had the same situation.  Where I am, many office buildings exist without sprinklers, and over the years tenants have put in pretty glass doors.  When a new T/I comes along and I ask where the fire partition or fire barrier (depending on situation) and where the appropriately rated opening protective is, I get the "well, there is a glass door there now, along with everyone else" answer.  I think this has happened as a result of a combination of un-permitted "improvements" and the previous administration allowing it.  Some existing spots have had sprinklers only at the doors.  When I asked one architect to justify this she did cite the atrium provisions, unfortunately this was not an atrium condition.  I think this was allowed by the previous administration.  Interestingly, I went out to look at one of these situations and I found there were sprinklers at the door, but not functional, not even connected.  Part of the problem with allowing this is how to effectively monitor, maintain and inspect systems like this, installed piece by piece.  And going forward, how future tenants, owners and building departments know about it.  FYI, I also have lots of unsprinkled buildings with atriums, no smoke control and no atrium separation.  These things are a constant source of problems.


----------



## cda (May 12, 2017)

I thought many moons ago

Maybe in ICBO land sprinklers on glass was recognized ??


----------



## Sifu (May 12, 2017)

I think so, and I always give them the option to provide that path to compliance.   Code says if it is existing and compliant under the original code it can stay, few can provide any verification that most of these situations were ever compliant, so upgrades are required.  Lots of hand-wringing consternation over the pretty glass door issues.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 12, 2017)

One of my favorite IEBC section is the 301.1 exception: "allows for compliance with the laws in existence at the time the structure was originally built, unless the building has sustained substantial structural damage or is undergoing more than a limited structural alteration."


----------



## PJC89 (Jul 31, 2017)

Bobbi_O said:


> Hi all
> 
> The architect's have designed glass wall partitions as non-rated class with a Sprinkler (water) curtain. I cannot find anywhere in the NYS Building / Fire code or NFPA where this can be used except for an atrium, and this is not an atrium. If anyone has had similar situations please let me know. Thanks
> 
> ...


Yeah, thats a great question and is often missunderstood.  You are correct, there is nowhere in the Building Code that allows for such an assembly to serve as a fire resistance rated assembly unless you are in an atrium which this is not.  An article below include some more information on this topic:

http://resources.up.codes/top-five-questions-asked-to-a-new-york-city-code-consultant/


----------



## JPohling (Aug 1, 2017)

Still trying to understand why this fully sprinklered B occupancy is not using the exception to eliminate the rated corridor?


----------



## steveray (Aug 2, 2017)

JPohling said:


> Still trying to understand why this fully sprinklered B occupancy is not using the exception to eliminate the rated corridor?



Probably because there is a jerk BO that is telling them they need a rated "tenant" separation....


----------



## Bobbi_O (Aug 9, 2017)

_§BC1020: CORRIDORS

§BC1020.1 Construction.
Corridors shall be fire-resistance rated in accordance with Table BC1020.1. The corridor walls required to be fire-resistance rated shall comply
with Section BC708 for fire partitions.

Exceptions:

  1. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors in an occupancy in Group E where each room that is used for instruction has not less than one door opening directly to the exterior and rooms for assembly purposes have not less than one-half of the required means of egress doors opening directly to the exterior. Exterior doors specified in this exception are required to be at ground level.

  2. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors contained within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit in an occupancy in Groups I-1 and R.

  3. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors in open parking garages.

 4. A fire-resistance rating is not required for corridors in an occupancy in Group B that is a space requiring only a single means of_
_  egress complying with Section BC1006.2._
_
  5. Corridors adjacent to the exterior walls of buildings shall be permitted to have unprotected openings on unrated exterior walls where unrated walls are permitted by Table BC602 and unprotected openings are permitted by Table BC705.8._


----------



## JBI (Aug 9, 2017)

A few minor items... 
1 - Is this a new building proposed or an existing building alteration? That will make a difference in the possible answers.
2 - Is the design a separated mixed use, or a non-separated mixed use? Again big difference in the answers.
3 - What an AHJ 'wants' is irrelevant, it is either Code compliant or it isn't. 
4 - It is the applicants responsibility to provide plans and specification that are adequate to determine code compliance.
   (Translation: If they have not identified which path they chose in point 2 above, the plans are not adequate)
5 - The OP is from New York, but the project location is not identified. Is this New York City or New York State?
      NYC has it's own Codes and interpretation procedures. NYS has interpretation authority outside of NYC. 
6 - IF outside NYC, have you contacted the Regional Office for Division of Building Standards and Codes?

There is simply not enough information provided to answer the OP definitively.


----------

