Be careful If I remember correctly the wording of the ICC Section 903.2.6 states:" An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings with a Group I fire area. [F]
Exception: An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 shall be allowed in Group I-1 facilities." Therefore, because of the wording of the exception, an I-2 used Group would need to be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13 only. Have a fire safe day. Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" Good morning Gentlemen (and Ron): Okay - I'll stick my neck out...Sight unseen, my thought would be to consider abandoning the dry-pipe system and leaving it in place and going with wet 13'R' in soffits/retrofit with CPVC piping. I would consider this only after consulting with the Client and the AHJ (in that order). My gut says this dry-pipe system is just starting to present numerous problems/headaches. My other concern is the traditional "lowering the level of protection" by de-commissioning the attic dry system (Fire Marshal) and the resultant impact on insurance rates - "partial" protection? I'm looking at two issues - the safety of occupants and staff (first and foremost) and the costs to Client. It would appear the Client is going to invest heavily in maintenance and repairs of the dry system. Depending on continued degradation, I would start to be concerned about the integrity of the system - current problems leading to additional problems. I believe our local Fire Marshal made a prudent decision recently regarding a new Hyatt Place Hotel here in Santa Fe that had a fourth floor area (non-attic space/top floor maybe 4,000 sq. ft.), unoccupied/accessible only by ladder, unheated with exposed 2 by 4 wood framing. Rather than require sprinkler coverage with a dry-pipe system, smoke detectors were installed based on "unocupied, non-storage and no heat sources". Fire and Building Dept.s signed off on it. I would 'pitch' the 13'R' not as a Code 'change', but as an upgrade/improvement (positive 'spin'?) to the Client and AHJ - and put some smokes up in the attic space, just in case. It always comes back to 'liability' - In the event of a 'problem', if you proceed demonstrating due diligence and have all of the "shareholders" on board, the wet-pipe scenario would be the approach we would most likely pursue (as an engineering firm). I didn't catch if system currently has old/SR sprinklers or newer QR/Rez sprinklers - if old type, the newer technology sprinklers would be a great selling point, just for starters. And do not forget input from insurance underwriter "AHJ"...The Client would be well advised to retain a licensed, FPE to address the Code and legal issues that will arise during negotiations. Regards to All/Happiest of Holidays!! Jerry [email protected] Jerry D. Watts, SFPE President ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.* Santa Fe/Albuquerque/Silver City/Roswell/Artesia New Mexico Seattle, WA San Diego, CA Phoenix, AZ (800) 503.1961 *Licensed Fire Protection Engineers/Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20111213/79ef5019/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
