Re: Attic protection over a storage occupancy
There is no requirement to separate occupancy/storage design areas other than the more demanding space has to extend 15 ft when no draft curtain or similar barrier is provided to contain the heat and smoke to one design area. In this case, it would seem that the space above the storage occupancy is a concealed space -- either combustible concealed or an unused attic as suggested. Either way, those are examples of light hazard areas with the caveat that it is ultimately the responsibility of a registered design professional to make that determination. Additionally, maximum spacing and areas of coverage would vary in the space above. Combustible concealed spaces require 120 max sq. ft per sprinkler and unused attics would need to be spaced based on construction, combustibility and pitch based on Table 10.2.4.2.1. Kevin Hall, M.Eng., P.E., ET, CWBSP, PMSFPE *Coordinator, Engineering and Technical Services* *American Fire Sprinkler Association* p: 214-349-5971 w: firesprinkler.org <https://www.facebook.com/firesprinkler.org/> <https://twitter.com/afsa/status/1039528345367732224> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-fire-sprinkler-association-afsa-/> <https://www.instagram.com/firesprinklerorg/> *Don’t miss another issue!* Sign-up to get your exclusive copy of the industry’s leading membership magazine *Sprinkler Age* <https://sprinklerage.com/subscribe/> delivered straight to your mailbox, inbox, or both! Subscribe now to get the latest information you need to know and never miss another issue. On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:57 PM Scott Futrell via Sprinklerforum < sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > Mike, > That is an interesting situation and thought. > I would defer to Messer's Hall and Denhardt. > For CMDA sprinklers there are requirements in light and ordinary hazard, > but I don't see specific reference to combustible roof materials for > storage and CMDA. > The are limitations for spacing of CMSA sprinklers with combustible > construction 13.2.6.1, but I don't see differences between combustible and > non-combustible in the ESFR chapter. > Storage sprinkler tests are conducted with non-combustible roof > construction to the best of my knowledge. I don't see a requirement for > non-combustible roof materials in the 2022 edition, storage section. It > seems that if the sprinklers are operating as intended the combustible roof > material would not ignite before sprinkler operation, but... > I didn't spend a lot of time on this research, so I hope I didn't miss > something. > > Scott > > Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 > Cell: (612) 759-5556 > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 11:43 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Mike Morey > Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy > > Maybe I wasn't clear, this is an existing unsprinklered building attached > to a sprinklered building at a firewall. I presume when constructed it was > per code. The intent is to add fire protection at the request of an > insurance company. All areas would be protected as stated, my concern is > whether or not a traditional light hazard attic design is appropriate for > the space above the plywood ceiling given that it's a plastic storage > warehouse below. > > Mike Morey > CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 > Project Manager * Fire Protection Group > Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company > 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / > cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:36 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Art Tiroly > Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy > > > BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. > > > No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection? > Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard. > If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection. > Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of > the building and contents. > > Art Tiroly > > ATCO Fire Protection > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 10:59 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Mike Morey > Subject: Attic protection over a storage occupancy > > Applicable code/standards would be IBC 2012 and its references (NFPA 13 > 2010 > mainly) I'm not coming up with a "why not" for this, but it doesn't
RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy
Mike, That is an interesting situation and thought. I would defer to Messer's Hall and Denhardt. For CMDA sprinklers there are requirements in light and ordinary hazard, but I don't see specific reference to combustible roof materials for storage and CMDA. The are limitations for spacing of CMSA sprinklers with combustible construction 13.2.6.1, but I don't see differences between combustible and non-combustible in the ESFR chapter. Storage sprinkler tests are conducted with non-combustible roof construction to the best of my knowledge. I don't see a requirement for non-combustible roof materials in the 2022 edition, storage section. It seems that if the sprinklers are operating as intended the combustible roof material would not ignite before sprinkler operation, but... I didn't spend a lot of time on this research, so I hope I didn't miss something. Scott Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 11:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Mike Morey Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy Maybe I wasn't clear, this is an existing unsprinklered building attached to a sprinklered building at a firewall. I presume when constructed it was per code. The intent is to add fire protection at the request of an insurance company. All areas would be protected as stated, my concern is whether or not a traditional light hazard attic design is appropriate for the space above the plywood ceiling given that it's a plastic storage warehouse below. Mike Morey CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager * Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Art Tiroly Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection? Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard. If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection. Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of the building and contents. Art Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Mike Morey Subject: Attic protection over a storage occupancy Applicable code/standards would be IBC 2012 and its references (NFPA 13 2010 mainly) I'm not coming up with a "why not" for this, but it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. I have a wood framed "pole barn" being used for plastic storage in racks. The building is a standard 4:12 wood truss building with plywood sheathing at the bottom of the trusses (with a layer of fiberglass batts on them above) creating a flat ceiling at 18' AFF, walls are exposed 2x construction with fiberglass batts. I can't come up with a reason I can't protect the space below the plywood according to the storage requirements (looking at .6/2600 dry system, rack storage of Gp A plastic to 20' max <5' clear, doing CMDA both because they barely have 18" clear and they want a dry system) and the space above as an unused light hazard attic, potentially with "back to back" style attic heads. Anyone see a flaw with this logic, or any other pitfalls to watch for due to this construction scenario? I don't love this scenario but the customer went out of their way to avoid sprinklering the building origina lly and built it to the bottom dollar, but now a new insurance carrier may require it to be protected. Mike Morey CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager * Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/l
RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy
NFPA 13, 2019 edition section A.4.3.2(16) lists unused attics as light hazard. That said, it's always better to consider the definition of the hazard as opposed to automatically applying the lists from the annex. Section 4.3.2 defines LH as spaces with low quantity and combustibility of contents. And of course, Table 10.2.4.2.1(a) will dictate the spacing of standard sprinklers in the LH space, depending on the construction and whether obstructed or not. Unless you (and the AHJ) believe the plywood adds to the combustibility, there is a solid case for LH design in the unoccupied attic. Just my thoughts Bob Caputo Have you visited afsasafetyportal.com yet? It's AFSA's member-only safety resource! This virtual library delivers the accident-prevention and safety-related information you need to educate your staff, help prevent claims, and create a safe work environment. Click here to learn more. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Mike Morey Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy Maybe I wasn't clear, this is an existing unsprinklered building attached to a sprinklered building at a firewall. I presume when constructed it was per code. The intent is to add fire protection at the request of an insurance company. All areas would be protected as stated, my concern is whether or not a traditional light hazard attic design is appropriate for the space above the plywood ceiling given that it's a plastic storage warehouse below. Mike Morey CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager * Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Art Tiroly Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection? Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard. If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection. Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of the building and contents. Art Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Mike Morey Subject: Attic protection over a storage occupancy Applicable code/standards would be IBC 2012 and its references (NFPA 13 2010 mainly) I'm not coming up with a "why not" for this, but it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. I have a wood framed "pole barn" being used for plastic storage in racks. The building is a standard 4:12 wood truss building with plywood sheathing at the bottom of the trusses (with a layer of fiberglass batts on them above) creating a flat ceiling at 18' AFF, walls are exposed 2x construction with fiberglass batts. I can't come up with a reason I can't protect the space below the plywood according to the storage requirements (looking at .6/2600 dry system, rack storage of Gp A plastic to 20' max <5' clear, doing CMDA both because they barely have 18" clear and they want a dry system) and the space above as an unused light hazard attic, potentially with "back to back" style attic heads. Anyone see a flaw with this logic, or any other pitfalls to watch for due to this construction scenario? I don't love this scenario but the customer went out of their way to avoid sprinklering the building origina lly and built it to the bottom dollar, but now a new insurance carrier may require it to be protected. Mike Morey CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager * Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sp rinklerforum-firesprinkler.o
Re: Attic protection over a storage occupancy
A-okay - Absolutely two different design criteria: attic above is light hazard and your system below is group 'a' plastics storage commodity. I would do it the same way. There's no need to design the attic to the lower area storage density in your case because they're not storing group 'a' plastics up there. JH <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:42 AM Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum < sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > Maybe I wasn't clear, this is an existing unsprinklered building attached > to a sprinklered building at a firewall. I presume when constructed it was > per code. The intent is to add fire protection at the request of an > insurance company. All areas would be protected as stated, my concern is > whether or not a traditional light hazard attic design is appropriate for > the space above the plywood ceiling given that it's a plastic storage > warehouse below. > > Mike Morey > CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 > Project Manager * Fire Protection Group > Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company > 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 > direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 > email mmo...@shambaugh.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:36 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Art Tiroly > Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy > > > BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. > > > No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection? > Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard. > If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection. > Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of > the building and contents. > > Art Tiroly > > ATCO Fire Protection > > > -Original Message- > From: Sprinklerforum On > Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 10:59 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Mike Morey > Subject: Attic protection over a storage occupancy > > Applicable code/standards would be IBC 2012 and its references (NFPA 13 > 2010 > mainly) I'm not coming up with a "why not" for this, but it doesn't give > me a warm fuzzy. I have a wood framed "pole barn" being used for plastic > storage in racks. The building is a standard 4:12 wood truss building with > plywood sheathing at the bottom of the trusses (with a layer of fiberglass > batts on them above) creating a flat ceiling at 18' AFF, walls are exposed > 2x construction with fiberglass batts. I can't come up with a reason I > can't protect the space below the plywood according to the storage > requirements (looking at .6/2600 dry system, rack storage of Gp A plastic > to 20' max <5' clear, doing CMDA both because they barely have 18" clear > and they want a dry system) and the space above as an unused light hazard > attic, potentially with "back to back" style attic heads. Anyone see a > flaw with this logic, or any other pitfalls to watch for due to this > construction scenario? I don't love this scenario but the customer went > out of their way to avoid sprinklering the building > origina lly and built it to the bottom dollar, but now a new insurance > carrier may require it to be protected. > > Mike Morey > CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 > Project Manager * Fire Protection Group > Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company > 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell > 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com > > > > This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain > confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No > confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If > you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all > copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the > sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, > print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended > recipient. > ___ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum
RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy
Maybe I wasn't clear, this is an existing unsprinklered building attached to a sprinklered building at a firewall. I presume when constructed it was per code. The intent is to add fire protection at the request of an insurance company. All areas would be protected as stated, my concern is whether or not a traditional light hazard attic design is appropriate for the space above the plywood ceiling given that it's a plastic storage warehouse below. Mike Morey CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager * Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:36 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Art Tiroly Subject: RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy BE ADVISED - This email originated outside EMCOR. No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection? Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard. If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection. Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of the building and contents. Art Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Mike Morey Subject: Attic protection over a storage occupancy Applicable code/standards would be IBC 2012 and its references (NFPA 13 2010 mainly) I'm not coming up with a "why not" for this, but it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. I have a wood framed "pole barn" being used for plastic storage in racks. The building is a standard 4:12 wood truss building with plywood sheathing at the bottom of the trusses (with a layer of fiberglass batts on them above) creating a flat ceiling at 18' AFF, walls are exposed 2x construction with fiberglass batts. I can't come up with a reason I can't protect the space below the plywood according to the storage requirements (looking at .6/2600 dry system, rack storage of Gp A plastic to 20' max <5' clear, doing CMDA both because they barely have 18" clear and they want a dry system) and the space above as an unused light hazard attic, potentially with "back to back" style attic heads. Anyone see a flaw with this logic, or any other pitfalls to watch for due to this construction scenario? I don't love this scenario but the customer went out of their way to avoid sprinklering the building origina lly and built it to the bottom dollar, but now a new insurance carrier may require it to be protected. Mike Morey CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager * Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!PEy36P2Ree2IDKHDssMLwq70UBvwk5gX32aU8NcgXc8x_JP_Pkqr3gfirY-jNCeY$ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!FaxH778!PEy36P2Ree2IDKHDssMLwq70UBvwk5gX32aU8NcgXc8x_JP_Pkqr3gfirY-jNCeY$ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Attic protection over a storage occupancy
No building size is indicated. Does the building code require protection? Plastic storage may be considered a high hazard. If protection is a code requirement then the attic requires protection. Without protection a fire in the attic will likely cause a total loss of the building and contents. Art Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum On Behalf Of Mike Morey via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Mike Morey Subject: Attic protection over a storage occupancy Applicable code/standards would be IBC 2012 and its references (NFPA 13 2010 mainly) I'm not coming up with a "why not" for this, but it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. I have a wood framed "pole barn" being used for plastic storage in racks. The building is a standard 4:12 wood truss building with plywood sheathing at the bottom of the trusses (with a layer of fiberglass batts on them above) creating a flat ceiling at 18' AFF, walls are exposed 2x construction with fiberglass batts. I can't come up with a reason I can't protect the space below the plywood according to the storage requirements (looking at .6/2600 dry system, rack storage of Gp A plastic to 20' max <5' clear, doing CMDA both because they barely have 18" clear and they want a dry system) and the space above as an unused light hazard attic, potentially with "back to back" style attic heads. Anyone see a flaw with this logic, or any other pitfalls to watch for due to this construction scenario? I don't love this scenario but the customer went out of their way to avoid sprinklering the building origina lly and built it to the bottom dollar, but now a new insurance carrier may require it to be protected. Mike Morey CFPS 3229 * NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager * Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive * Fort Wayne, IN * 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email mmo...@shambaugh.com This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
