Allow me to expand on this a bit. I'm referring to areas that NFPA 13 allows sprinklers to be omitted - specifically the 'middle' area of a noncombustible stair shaft with noncombustible stairs. If I provide sprinklers at the top and below the lowest landing, then I believe I've sprinklers it "throughout". A forum member sent me a few pages of the IBC w/commentary (thanks!). It reads, in part, ". . if the standard allows for the omission of sprinklers in any location, then the building is still considered as sprinklered throughout." That's what I was hoping for. Thanks to everyone for responding.
Ed Bamford Fire From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nick Maneen via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 2:34 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Nick Maneen <[email protected]>; 'Prahl, Craig/GVL' <[email protected]>; 'Ed Kramer' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IBC "throughout" To clarify, because I think many misunderstand this, throughout would be in accordance with the appropriate standard. For example, it would not require additional sprinklers in pantries in a 13R building or sprinklers above a ceiling in a non-combustible 13 building. I have had AHJs in the past try to start adding sprinklers where the standard allows them to be omitted because they don't understand. Taking the exception for alternate means of protection that Craig mentions below may be fine with the adopted fire code and local AHJ but it is not in compliance with the standard. Nick Maneen, SET c 704.791.7789 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 3:17 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Prahl, Craig/GVL; Ed Kramer Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IBC "throughout" When the IBC/IFC doesn't provide a specific definition we are told (ref. 2018 IFC) 201.4 Terms not defined. Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, shall be considered as providing ordinarily accepted meanings. Throughout means throughout. We've just been through this definition issue with a local architect. Omission of sprinklers in a Control room with Sapphire provided is acceptable as an alternative by the AHJ but the building loses all advantages or allowances that are given to a fully sprinklered building since taking out sprinklers and substituting a gaseous system no longer qualifies as being sprinklered throughout. Basically any part of the code that allows you to do something a little more risky or bigger, higher, wider or of greater quantity or whatever based on a fully sprinklered building or where sprinklers are installed throughout, now goes away and you can't do those things. The Commentary spells this out in great detail. 2018, IFC Commentary, 903.1.1. Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] | <http://www.jacobs.com/> www.jacobs.com 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Ed Kramer via Sprinklerforum Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 2:38 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Ed Kramer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] IBC "throughout" There are countless sections in the IBC that say sprinklers shall be " . . .installed throughout . ." or ". . .provided throughout . ." or ". .equipped throughout . ." or something similar. But I don't' see where the IBC tells me what "throughout" means. I've assumed it meant sprinklers in all areas that the applicable NFPA standard (NFPA 13 in this case) requires them, but not in areas that the applicable NFPA standard allows them to be omitted. I've learned, since the IBC doesn't define the term, there are jurisdictions that define it differently - more specifically they don't recognize the omissions that NFPA 13 allows, only the exempt locations listed in IBC section 903.3.1.1.1. Is anyone aware of an IBC document that would shed some light on this? I've found a number of articles from consultants, associations, etc., but something directly from the IBC would carry a lot more weight. Ed Kramer Bamford Fire Sprinkler _____ NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
