So, to update...
The architect has deemed this attic to be no storage. Therefore, not requiring sprinklers per NFPA 13R. However, architect has shown a pull-down hatch into the attic inside the 3'rd floor unit, which is on the highest floor. My predicament here is that he's designated the attic "no storage" but at the same time shows an access hatch from the 3'rd floor unit into the attic. My thought is to leave sprinklers out of the attic (since he's designated it no storage) but to get a signed letter that holds the design professional harmless from any fires originated from storage. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:08 AM Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: > This thread has taken on some additional and interesting layers. > > > > Building Code §1208 includes the prescriptive requirements for attic > access. Basically, if any compartment above the uppermost ceiling of a > building has a clear height of more than 30”. Attic compartments are > almost always formed by draftstops, and those are almost always installed > on one side of the studs that frame demising walls between dwelling units > and/or corridors. So even if an attic is not used for storage, and > depending on its height and the configuration of draftstops, you may see > dozens of attic access panels throughout a multi-family residential > building. If it’s a 13R design, sprinkler protection is not required > UNLESS… > > > > The situation described does in fact complicate the assessment of building > height by number of stories. The IBC does not specify or even infer when > an attic might be considered a story, but there are state amendments and > there almost certainly would be a subjective ruling by the local building > official about when an attic intended for storage might be considered a > story. Some of the state amendments I found in a quick search included > conditions where the ceiling height meets the requirements for clearance > (in both the building and mechanical codes), or where the floor area of the > attic makes up more than a threshold percentage of the overall area of the > floor below. > > > > However, if it’s a story, then it would require two means of egress, which > almost certainly would blow up the design of a building that is intended to > be a 3-story R2. In the specific situation we’re discussing here, if the > attic (or a portion) has a floor assembly engineered for load, and adequate > ceiling height for access or use, it must be fire sprinklered per 13R; the > attic exception is for unused spaces only as others have noted. What your > describing doesn’t sound like a 4th story to me, but it’s ultimately up > to the building official. > > > > My opinion only, > > > > Steve L. > > > > > > *From:* Dapr Jones <daprjo...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2024 7:39 AM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13R - Multifamily with attic access > > > > Thanks. Yes I see now that sprinklers would definitely be required if the > tenant has access to the attic. > > > > Follow up- You can't just install a wet pipe system up there if you add > heaters to the attic can you? NFPA 13R has special requirements (from what > I understand) for sprinklers in attic where it's not as simple as wet pipe > with space heaters. > > Let me know if you agree that's the case. > > > > Thank you > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 9:09 AM <matthew.will...@ferguson.com> wrote: > > I suggest a careful reading of 6.6.6 in 13R. > > > > While a 13D system ignores storage in attics, 13R does not allow the same > considerations. > > > > Appropriately, I think Todd means, if the area becomes a “Story” or not as > defined in IBC. > > > > Then it would be treated like a dwelling unit. > > > > Otherwise, you are running into an area outside the dwelling unit and get > kicked back to 13 for Design. > > > > My observation on limited data. > > > > R/ > > Matt > > > > > > > > *Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, C.E.T.* > > *Ferguson Fire Design, LLC* > > D: (602) 337-0721 <http://(602)%20337-0721> C: (307) 236-8249 > <http://(307)%20236-8249> > > matthew.will...@ferguson.com > > > > *From:* Dapr Jones <daprjo...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 28, 2024 8:52 PM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: NFPA 13R - Multifamily with attic access > > > > *Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT > click links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender. * > ------------------------------ > > Thanks Todd, much appreciated. Yes, it would still be 13R I agree. > > When you say " it would need to be appropriately protected" do you mean > the attic would need to be sprinklered? > > > > It would become accessible to the tenant and they would likely use it for > storage. Does 13R allow omission of sprinklers only for attics not used > for storage? > > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 1:42 PM Fpdcdesign <fpdcdes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As far as access, attic access could be allowed unless prohibited by > Building Code or other restriction (ie zoning approval). > > > > However, since it is accessible for living space or storage, it would need > to be appropriately protected. Even then, it could be considered 4 stories > instead of 3 and it would still be 13R. > > > > Todd Williams > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, CT > > 860-608-4559 > > > > On Jul 28, 2024 at 1:31 PM, <Dapr Jones <daprjo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I'm working on a project that is 3 stories with attic, multifamily > residential, type VA construction. > > We designed the system to NFPA 13R, with no sprinklers in the attic. > Now the architect wants to add access to the attic for the 3'rd floor > tenant. > (note, there's only one tenant on the 3rd fl. of this building) > > My question is, can the architect actually allow access to the attic for a > tenant in a multifamily as far as the building or fire codes are concerned? > If yes, would sprinklers be required in the attic in this case? > (considering tenant will likely use it as storage) > > Thanks > > > > _________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum > mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org >
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
