In my regular code calls I used to include a specific question on the use of clean agent systems in server rooms.
Building Owners & Sprinklers Many building owners provide clean agent systems to extinguish fires in high-value content areas, such as server rooms, data centers, archival storage, and many other applications. When the owners voluntarily pony-up for extra protection in these areas, they often ask whether sprinklers have to be installed in those spaces at all. My Code Call Question On my code calls, my question would go something like: “does your jurisdiction require sprinklers to be installed in rooms which are protected by a clean agent system?” I would get a mixed response. Some jurisdictions considered clean agent systems to be an equivalent for sprinkler protection, others would not. A couple years after asking this question on every applicable project I had a fire marshal shoot me straight. “If you don’t have sprinklers in the room, you don’t have a fully-sprinklered building. Check the IBC.” This was news to me. I was under the impression that use of clean agent systems could be used as a substitute for fire sprinklers and still be effectively “fully-sprinklered”. Back to the Book There is a path for this approach – the International Building Code (2018) Section 904.2 states that: “Automatic fire-extinguishing systems (ie: clean agent) installed as an alternative to the required automatic sprinkler systems of Section 903 shall be approved by the fire code official.” This was the foundation on which I had been asking the question. The big kicker was the code section just a paragraph later: “904.2.1 Restriction on using automatic sprinkler system exceptions or reductions. Automatic fire-extinguishing systems shall not be considered alternatives for the purposes of exceptions or reductions allowed for automatic sprinkler systems or by other requirements of this code.” Outside of the lawyer-phrasing, this section simply states “no sprinklers in the room – no sprinkler reductions or exceptions for your building.” The commentary by the International Code Council goes further, stating that while the authority has the ability to approve alternative systems in lieu of sprinklers, doing so invalidates the “fully-sprinklered” status of a building. Why Does this Matter? Why is this important? There is a long list of code kickbacks that sprinklers offer a building. A couple months ago I diagramed a cheatsheet for all of the major code benefits a “fully-sprinklered” NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system offers. You can download it free here. Code benefits include allowable building heights, building areas, number of stories, egress benefits, passive rating reductions, Draftstopping reductions, fire alarm reductions, and a handful of other benefits. I realized after that code call that the question affected well more than just my isolated “fire sprinkler” silo. Omitting sprinklers in just one server room would have code implications throughout the complex. Now, should building owners ask about omitting in these rooms we often look at other strategies – such as concealed sidewall sprinklers, use of dry sprinklers, drip pans, use of pre-action systems, or piping without joints and heavy-duty cages. Some of these solutions can be painless, without great cost and satisfy code as well. Want more like this? Subscribe to the blog here. Already subscribed? Send to a friend. Thanks for reading!
Grant
11/13/2019 12:04:23 pm
I was under the impression that a server room would likely fall under the exemptions in IFC 903.3.1.1.1 (see below) and if so, sprinklers are not required in that room and therefore the omission would not trigger removal of "fully sprinklered" status.
Warren Maddox
11/13/2019 10:15:20 pm
I clicked on the PDF cheat sheet and I got the 13R cheat sheet not the 13 cheat sheet.
Joe Meyer
11/14/2019 07:29:33 am
It's one in the same. All of the benefits for an NFPA 13 system is the same as the benefits of a "fully-sprinklered building".
Michele Rivarola
11/14/2019 04:55:21 am
You will probably find that the code has not changed over the years and no one has really brought up the misnomer of the risk of compromising a fully protected building by omitting sprinklers in portions of a building where another system is being provided. If the building is a rental where the room occupancy may change over time we would normally recommend that sprinklers be removed and plugs fitted to the range pipes. High value rooms with extra protection are usually constructed as separate fire F120 partitions so they would in any event last a lot longer than the available water for the sprinkler installation. We can use our logic every now and then even if code deviations are usually not recommended we also do not have to act like lemmings. Where the high value protected space is dedicated and has a fire rating that exceeds that of the available sprinkler water installing sprinklers as well as an inert/clean agent system makes little if any sense.
Joe Meyer
11/14/2019 07:34:35 am
Michele you bring up a great point, thanks for the post. Just my opinion, but I think providing a rated separation well above code minimum changes the discussion. This approach was not the scenario we came across for many projects. Comments are closed.
|
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBEGet Free Articles via Email:
+ Get calculators, tools, resources and articles
+ Get our PDF Flowchart for Canopy & Overhang Requirements instantly + No spam
+ Unsubscribe anytime AUTHORJoe Meyer, PE, is a Fire Protection Engineer out of St. Louis, Missouri who writes & develops resources for Fire Protection Professionals. See bio here: About FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
September 2024
|