There is a jurisdiction in Washington that has a similar requirement for private garages as Owen described when attached (maybe detached too but I've not needed to ask). The AHJs argument is that although Washington State does not require SFD garages sprinklered he wants them sprinklered in his jurisdiction. He falls back on the building code and argues that an SFD is a parking structure and so an S2 occupancy requiring OH1 coverage. Another jurisdiction requires detached garages to be sprinklered to a 13D design (arguing that such doesn't exist falls on deaf ears) depending on the number of cars that can fit in it. Other jurisdictions have varying rules regarding densities, sprinkler location, and whether the garage needs to be fully covered or partially covered. Often these requirements are codified and applied uniformly and sometimes they aren't.
Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com 253.576.9700 The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-) On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:20 AM Parsley Consulting via Sprinklerforum < sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > Tagging on to the point Travis raised regarding the potential cost of a > meter upsize. > > There is a water purveyor in San Diego County which has established a > *minimum* meter size of 2" for a sprinkler system designed to NFPA 13, > with the potential for even larger devices should the demand exceed the > listed capacity of the 2" model. > > The following are their published cost of the meter to their customers: > > - 1" $2,200 > - 1¼" $4,500 > - 1½" $8,000 > - 2" $22,000 > > So taking into consideration the increased minimum meter upsize cost the > system has just been made $20K more expensive. > > That's worth some discussion with the AHJ in my thinking. > > > *Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting* > > > > * 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone > 760-745-6181 Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> * > On 12/06/2019 3:25 AM, Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum wrote: > > Owen: > > Weren’t you the one complaining that a couple hundred dollar flow test was > causing significant problems. > > Now you want to make a detached garage in a 13D system to have NFPA 13 > densities. Wouldn’t that require a full flow test there? > > That meter upsize is likely far more expensive than the flow test. > > 13D is about making the systems cost effective to get them into homes with > less resistance. > > Pure 13D says no sprinklers in the garage when it is attached. By making > it detached, there would be a more solid argument for not putting > sprinklers in it. > > To the original question: If you have to protect the detached garage, I > would follow the requirements of 13D as modified by the local fire code > when applicable. > > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > 480-505-9271 x700 > MFP Design, LLC > www.mfpdesign,com > Send large files to MFP Design via: > https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 5, 2019, at 11:29 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > > > Owen: > > 1. Because it could trigger a meter up-size that might cost > $$thousands. > 2. Because there's no statistical substantiation for over-protecting > a freestanding garage with dead attic space above, If it was a dwelling > unit above it would be a .05, so why would a "basic" garage require more? > According to NFPA, fewer than 3% of home fires started in the garage, > nearly all of those from hot work. > 3. Because it's not required by the code and referenced standards. > 4. The reason it's not required is that the intent of home fire > sprinkler protection is life-safety and not property protection. > > Now, if you're willing to subsidize the cost impact of a higher density, > I'm sure both the contractor and owner of the subject property would love > to hear from you. But why stop there - if you look at it as a detached > parking structure, the correct density is .15. > > Steve L. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> > <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> on behalf of firstin--- > via Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2019 9:02 PM > *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > *Cc:* firs...@aol.com <firs...@aol.com> <firs...@aol.com> > *Subject:* Re: Detached Garage > > The thinking being why not spend a few extra bucks and protect the > structure and contents with greater density. Makes no sense to buy time for > escape with .05. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > > > This issue was not clearly defined in the current 2016 California code set > but if you look to the 2019, there is new material that very clearly states > that this would be per 13D. Utility occupancies that are accessory to an > SFD are to be protected by that standard. > > > > Steve Leyton > > (Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.) > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jerry Van Kolken via Sprinklerforum > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Date: 12/5/19 7:10 PM (GMT-08:00) > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: jvankol...@mfpc.us > Subject: Detached Garage > > I’m a little rusty on my 13D. > > > > I have a residence with a detached 3 car garage with a non-storage attic > above about 860 sqft. If I’m to provide protect the structure would it > still fall under 13d? > > > > Jerry Van Kolken > > *Millennium Fire Protection Corp.* > > 2950 San Luis Rey Rd. > > Oceanside, CA 92058 > > (760) 722-2722 FX 722-2730 > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing > listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
