I don't think anyone addressed you just can't remove the system and swap for a 13R even if today's standard would allow 13R. The Codes are a system of protection. There may be things for example in a construction consideration that is dependent on a full 13 system. Not an exception but an assumption because the people who wrote the other section looked to see what the sprinkler section said and vice-versa. The only way to swap systems is to treat the building new and look at everything, and I mean everything, and see if 13R still stands, with AHJ approval of course.
I'd reference these two section in the IFC 901.8 Removal of or tampering with equipment. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, ... any ... fire suppression system, ...except... when approved by the fire code official. 901.4 Installation. Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. With all due respect, the replacing of sprinklers IF REQUIRED in your Hyatt example with smoke detectors still doesn't make it Code compliant even if the AHJ agreed. The contractor and/or engineer's insurance just bought a big piece of the building probably unknowingly. Probably will never be an issue but why would you take the chance? Hard to defend non-code compliance. And IMHO SD are not even close to equivalent to sprinklers under the equivalency clauses. And as Jim pointed out the current IFC still requires 13. So filling with insulation might be your only choice to avoid the attic. Can you get dry uprights from below and not run the pipes in the attic? Unlikely but a thought. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell P: 952.656.3652 F: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com *Lic. in MN -----Original Message------ From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:37:18 AM GMT-5 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
