If the building code considers this an F-2 occupancy and the building can meet the egress requirements without sprinklers, and there are no other code issues that would require sprinklers then they would be correct that you wouldn't need sprinklers. It has nothing to do with building height.
Even if the building were 100 feet hight, if a fire were to break out the products of combustion are going where, to the heighest point. Sprinklers may react slower due to the height but at some point they are going to react and will help knock down the gas temps. I've asked the same question and had gotten this answer back from different mfgr engineers. They are the ones doing the design, testing and listings for the sprinklers and I hope they would know. So to say that just because the building is high there shouldn't be any sprinklers is not valid. If the biulding were an F-1 occupancy you'd have sprinklers period. Otherwise you don't meet code. To sprinkler or not to sprinkler is not up to NFPA 13, it's a building code issue. Craig Prahl CH2MHILL/SPB 864-599-4102 ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Omitting sprinklers in a high building Another thought may be: Mr. Customer, "Here are the code references that require sprinklers. There may be a prescriptive way of eliminating the sprinklers in this area so I have provided pricing both ways. If the sprinklers are to be eliminated please have the EOR give that order in writing to protect both you and I from the lawyers in the future, if the worst ever happens...." Many times just because we can eliminate sprinklers doesn't mean that we shouldn't present the option to the owner in a way that he understands that he IS taking more risk. How much more risk is clearly debatable but I would leave that to him and the EOR/AHJ. You may be surprised at what some owners are willing to pay to avoid risk in the future. It may seem like a big number to us sprinkies but compared to the cost of the project maybe not too much to them.....especially in a manufacturing facility. This may be a way to distinguish yourself from your competition by showing that they are required. He may have more confidence in you which may result in a sale with or without the coverage. Rod Rapid Fire -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Omitting sprinklers in a high building Effective at 50' in what occupancy? Storage to 45' sure, convention set up maybe, light hazard atrium, maybe not. Of course we'd probably need to start with what is 'effective'. With a square function there is a BIG difference between 50' and 119' in the heat at the roof to even make them go off. That is not to say they are not required by code as they are no matter what height (with others referenced exceptions). But a good FPE and reasonable AHJ you MIGHT be able omit. Your competition is suspect with a blanket statement to the effect. If they go with the competition make sure the customer enforces the contract and no extras for the roof. Bet they change their tune. As AHJ back in '99 I agreed with omitting the sprinklers at the roof in the NHL Wild arena. Can't recall the exact height but it's in the 150' range. We burned a 10 MW fire in the old arena and at 100' it was very doubtful the sprinklers would operate. We had instrumentation. The design fires we set at 10 MW when occupied on the upper levels and larger if no one above the main concourse. For the boat shows we acknowledged larger fires were possible BUT the size of the ice (fuel area), very infrequent events, large paid FD and fire prevention personal from the FD on site when open to the public were mitigating factors. There are also an array of beam smoke detectors to help with early detection. Remember this was pre FDS days. 10 years later I'd still stand behind the concept. Chris Cahill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Grise Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:49 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Omitting sprinklers in a high building Just saw this again today. NFPA 13-2010 A.8.1.1 This standard contemplates full sprinkler protection for all areas including walk-in coolers, freezers, bank vaults, and similar areas. Other NFPA standards that mandate sprinkler installation might not require sprinklers in certain areas. Based upon experience and testing, sprinklers have been found to be effective and necessary at heights in excess of 50 ft (15.2 m). For a building to meet the intended level of protection afforded by NFPA 13, sprinklers must not be omitted from such high ceiling spaces. The requirements of this standard should be used insofar as they are applicable. The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted in each case. A building is considered sprinklered throughout when protected in accordance with the requirements of this standard. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection *Licensed in KS & MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Omitting sprinklers in a high building Is there anywhere in NFPA 13 stating that you can omit sprinklers if the roof structure is above a certain height above the ground? We have a manufacturing building that will have a 119ft deck and my competition is stating that sprinklers would not be required. Thanks, Dewayne _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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)
