Trying to figure out if you are disagreeing with Curtis other than the reference to latest code. You are right you follow the code in effect as to whether you need sprinklers. So there are differences in which edition in whether they are required. But if not required and you choose to go over and above you are still obligated to follow the referenced standard (and year) of the adopted code. See IFC 2006 (and '03 and I still think it's in '12) 901.4.2 Nonrequired fire protection systems. Any fire protection system or portion thereof not required by this code or the International Building Code shall be allowed to be furnished for partial or complete protection provided such installed system meets the requirements of this code and the International Building Code.
So you can't do a 634 sq ft system. Now there is a question about doing above the ceiling with the phrase for partial...but generally AHJ's rule either all of 13 or no sprinkler (when allowed to be non-sprinklered). Could one say they are doing a full 13 design below the ceiling or I suppose the same question is if you only do 634 sq ft in the building then you have a 634 sq ft design (notwithstanding the phantom design area if in the '13 13). Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: BK Design Curtis, You're obligated to design to the current adopted code of the jurisdiction which may or may not be the "latest codes and standards." And if this building is a stand alone of <5000 sqft, with an occupancy of <100 it doesn't need to be sprinklered at all per IBC (see requirements for an A-2 occupancy). If the applicable building code is IBC 2003 (I think it changed in 2006 but maybe 2009--the prior threshold being <12K sqft and <300 people), or some earlier version, or one of the other model codes from the Twentieth Century, or any code amended upon adoption by a state legislature, or an amended municipal or county code (acceptable in home rule states), or the code adopted in a major city, requirements can be wholly different either requiring more or less protection. If BK has chosen to provide what is essentially a volunteer life safety type system to provide customers added egress protection in case of emergency (pretty standard thinking in A and R type occupancies in the late seventies, through the eighties and into the early nineties) in an otherwise non-required building I applaud them. That it hasn't been revisited by the corporation since 1978 is troubling but it's their decision. Personally I feel I'm pretty savvy as to how a fire works and what threat I'm exposed to in the dining area of a stand alone corporate fast food joint, and don't even give it a second thought as to where I sit other than noting where the exits are. Now if it's in a strip mall or a high rise or a full mall it's going to be fully sprinklered because of the type of building it's in, first and foremost because these buildings will already be sprinklered (at least relatively new ones), and secondly because it poses a greater exposure threat to it's neighbors, not necessarily its customers. More prevalent on the fire alarm forum than here is an attitude of' "If a little is good, then the most is best." This is eventually self defeating as other interests have larger stakes in buildings than fire guys and fire protection contractors , and the concept of cost/benefit and diminishing returns has to be considered from the customers' point of view. The engineers are supposed to be doing this, but while the design/build model is prevalent it's incumbent upon the contractors and techs to study up on this stuff and incorporate it into their thought processes. I'm not directing these comments at you Curtis, even though it was your comment that put me on this track, but rather just in general. Nothing makes my head explode more than a spec calling for a double-interlock pre-action system covering a closet with a single rack of five or six PC type "servers." Not only an unnecessary expense in this case but the wrong system, spec'd because someone thought if single-action is good double-action must be better. Damn it Jim, I'm no accountant but even I know it's cheaper to have off-site back-up than amortizing the cost of one of these things. What I do know is I wouldn't even put a double-action over a $10M Cray. Wrong system altogether. Rant over. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:09 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm sure that you're quite aware that your obligation is to design and > protect this facility according to the latest codes and standards. > The only way that I'm aware that you might justify a 653 s.f. is > through some application of the room design method in this instance. > And, of course, the concealed combustible spaces would still need to > be addressed. > > BK must have drug some prints out of a closet, blew off the dust, and > said, "Here ya go...all signed and sealed!" Bottom line is that codes > and standards trump owner "wants" all day long, so satisfy the code and CYA. > > Curtis Tower > Central Fire Protection > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: BK Design > > I'm working on a Burger King. I've never done a BK before, so what > I'm about to describe seems ridiculous. > The design criteria is based on a PE proto type from 1978. This is > what the contractor was given and told to use as "spec". > There are combustible concealed spaces above ceilings throughout > premises, but no sprinkler protection is to be provided. The design > criteria is 6 sprinklers over 653 sf in the dining area. To be calc'ed light > hazard. > That's it. Has anyone out here in forum land provided the system for > a BK lately? What was required/done? > > Thanks, > > Bob Knight, CET III > 208-318-3057 > www.firebyknight.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
