There was a fire in Norwich, CT a couple of years ago. The fire started in a grill on the third (top) floor patio, ignited the roof overhang, burned into the roof space and only activated the 13R system when it burned through the ceiling of a unit. Something like 70 people ended up homeless for a few months. I can't find a good article on it right now, but if I do find anything, I'll post it. I didn't design that system, but I quoted the re-build.
This is not the same complex that was destroyed in a major fire (in Norwich) a few months later. That one was not sprinklered and there were no fire stops in the attic space, so the fire ran through the entire complex. 120 units lost in that one. At 11:43 AM 5/29/2009, you wrote: >Anyone have any evidence of a poor outcome in a fire where a 13R was >installed vs. a required 13. I'd even take where a 13R was allowed. >Perhaps an attic that burned off? Got to be one of those out there. > >Now I'm not suggesting we do 13R's instead of the 13's. Just suggesting we >don't have a significant problem here. 99% of the fires will be controlled >as expected (one head no big deal) with either 13R or 13. Sometimes I think >we go overboard for the last 1% and this doesn't just apply to fire >protection. Our nanny state we are in is getting ridiculous about creating a >zero risk environment. Life is dangerous! > >But at the end of the day follow the law. And if you don't like the law >change it, don't ignore it. > >And Steve got a code reference. I read IBC 508.2 to not include fire >protection in the list of exceptions "for the purpose of determining >...area...firewalls...limitation on stories (which I believe is in the >context of IBC table 503)...type of construction. See 13R doesn't limit the >number of stories in a building the number of stories in a building limits >the use of 13R. If they wanted to include 13R in 4+1 story pedestal >building wouldn't they have added section 903 or 903.3.1.2. I don't read >508.4 to allow it either. "number of stories to be used in determining the >minimum type of construction". I believe this was Drucker's point 5 emails >ago. > >Chris Cahill, P.E. >Fire Protection Engineer >Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. > >763-658-4483 >763-658-4921 fax > >Email: [email protected] > >Mail: P.O. Box 69 > Waverly, MN 55390 > >Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW > Waverly, MN 55390 >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:51 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: 13 & 13R - same building > >We can debate issues of functionality, but the code clearly defines a >podium separation as separate buildings. If the deck is solid >reinforced concrete, and the openings are shafted or protected (3 hr. >fire stops), then you can build down to Type V above a Type 1. Of >course, this also allows a LOT of unprotected openings at the exterior >walls above (presuming adequate setbacks), but the presumption is that >sprinklers will control a fire below that deck and limit exterior >spread. > >Steve Leyton >Protection Design & Consulting >San Diego, CA > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John >Drucker >Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:58 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: 13 & 13R - same building > >Steve & Roland, > >Being that two solutions separate buildings, open space and firewalls, a >horizontal separation will never satisfy either. Whomever coined the >term >"horizontal firewall" most likely wasn't using it in the context of >gravity. >So I guess it applies to the space station. Then again can one use a 13R >for >the space station ?, sounds like a mixed use. > >John Drucker > >PS, George, Let's not start on what's being allowed by AHJ's. Also don't >feel you're alone on "combination sensing lines". Just had one from a >licensed contractor. It has since been abated. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve >Leyton >Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:51 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: 13 & 13R - same building > >And it should be added that the TC has proposed new language for scope >section 1.1 of 13R that, if it passes the hearing in two weeks, will >clarify that the intent is for 13R to be applied only to buildings that >are classified as residential and the ancillary occupancies within. So >if a structure is separated horizontally or vertically into separate >buildings as defined by the code, you can have two designs - 13 and 13R >- in each separated building. But if a structure is one building of >mixed occupancies, then it's a 13 design, period. > >The foregoing is my opinion only and does not necessarily represent the >opinion or intent of the NFPA 13D/13R Technical Committee on Residential >Sprinkler Systems. > >Steve Leyton >Protection Design & Consulting >San Diego, CA > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland >Huggins >Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:42 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: 13 & 13R - same building > >even the scope of 13R and annex material confirm you can not mix the >two systems in one building. As for HORIZONTAL separation equal to >building separation -as soon as it's possible to have the floor >collapse and not affect the other side, then we'll talk about >horizontal separation for two buildings. > >Todd - who spec'd it and where does your PE status enter the issue for >incorrect application of standards? > >Roland > >On May 28, 2009, at 6:19 AM, John Drucker wrote: > > > George, > > > > Careful George don't give em any ideas; "If they resist you pointing > > out the fact that 13 should apply to the entire building, maybe point > > out that using their logic, you could do the top 4 floors of a > > residential high-rise using 13R?" > > > > This would NOT be permitted since a high-rise would be at least 75ft > > highest occupiable floor above lowest FD vehicle access, or appx a 6-7 > > story building wherein 13R is limited to "Residential Occupancies up > > to > > including four stories in height". Height being measured from grade > > plane. > > > > Guys the title and scope of the standard make it clear 13R is not > > intended for "Residential Occupancies" and not "Mixed Use" > > occupancies. > > Common areas including private garages; mail, trash, laundry, exercise > > and storage areas that serve the residential occupancy are considered > > "incidental" and appropriately addressed in 13R wherein these spaces > > are > > designed and installed in according to 13. However in the end its > > still > > a 13R system and not a 13/13R which simply doesn't exist. Mixed use > > Buildings are provided for at IBC 508. > > > > Lastly be careful of the IBC Section 509.2 provisions. Read the > > section > > carefully especially the part; "separate and distinct building for the > > purpose of determining area limitations, continuity of fire walls, > > limitation of number of stories, and type of construction" There's no > > mention of height with regards to fire sprinkler systems thus the > > measurement is from grade plane and not the pedestal. I'm certain we > > have many a 5 story building out there with 13R systems. > > > > John Drucker > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >For Technical Assistance, send an email to: >[email protected] > >To Unsubscribe, send an email >to:[email protected] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4112 (20090528) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4112 (20090528) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >For Technical Assistance, send an email to: >[email protected] > >To Unsubscribe, send an email >to:[email protected] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >For Technical Assistance, send an email to: >[email protected] > >To Unsubscribe, send an email >to:[email protected] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4114 (20090528) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
