This project has a canopy. It canopy is not attached to the building. The building is required to have a sprinkler system installed in accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1 (an NFPA 13 system) in order to increase the allowable building area. 

The canopy is providing weather protection for transit passengers. It's Type II-B, non-combustible, and made of steel, concrete, and metal panels. The canopy is also very large, and on its own exceeds the allowable area for a non-sprinklered Group A-3 occupancy.

Do the provisions of NFPA 13-2016 Section 8.15.7.2 (copied below) allow for an omission of sprinklers from an exterior canopy as described here?

8.15.7.2* Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted where the exterior canopies, roofs, porte-cocheres, balconies, decks, and similar projections are constructed with materials that are noncombustible, limited-combustible, or fire retardant–treated wood as defined in NFPA 703, or where the projections are constructed utilizing a noncombustible frame, limited combustibles, or fire retardant–treated wood with an inherently flame-resistant fabric overlay as demonstrated by Test Method 2 in accordance with NFPA 701.

A.8.15.7.2 Vehicles that are temporarily parked are not considered storage. Areas located at drive-in bank windows or
porte-cocheres at hotels and motels normally do not require sprinklers where there is no occupancy above, where the area is entirely constructed of noncombustible or limited combustible materials or fire retardant–treated lumber, and
where the area is not the only means of egress. However, areas under exterior ceilings where the building is sprinklered
should be protected due to the occupancy above.

​​​Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

One of the frustrating non real-world things in consulting is that on the contracting side, 99.9% of the time we start at flange inside the building. Red-line the contract if needed, or work out an informal deal with the underground contractor. 

On the consulting/engineering side we have this whole underground spec section, just for five-feet out, including tracing wire and tape, testing offsite soils, soils disposal, shoring, compaction, size of rock, etc.  I understand the civil engineers will only take it to five feet. 

I’ve asked my people why we can't just match reality and just start inside the building? I am told if we did there is this 5-ft. gap that has to be claimed by someone (despite what is done in reality).

Have you addressed this in your experience in any way? I am wondering how others deal with it. On the contracting side we all just made it happen.  On the consulting/paperwork side, it’s hard to make the paperwork match reality.  Do you even seen thrust block calcs submitted from anyone since it is part of the imaginary five-feet out?

Sorry, ranting a bit, it came to mind again today because I have constructability comments from the architect that recognized that in this particular case, the AHJ permit covers from the flange, their solution is to have my spec cover the entire fire line. I’m not comfortable with that.   

​​​Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I've used a very low-tier PDF editor and viewer and I'm interested in finding a better solution for viewing, marking up, and measuring basics like distance, perimeters, and areas. There's got to be better software options out there. I've heard of Bluebeam, Adobe and I've used Drawboard on my tablet.

What PDF editor & viewer would you recommend (free and paid) that works well in the design industry?

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

A project we're working on has an existing basement area that is broken up into many small existing rooms. Each room has varying ceiling heights and different grid directions.

The remodel that is going to be done will change all of these small spaces into three areas with a consistent new ceiling height that is about the average height of the existing ceilings.

If you are the engineer preparing bid documents in a scenario like this, would you call out for full pipe replacement, or only to modify the existing branch lines?

I would be interested in how others approach this issue prior to bid.

On one hand, modifying the existing system has the potential to save a significant amount of pipe, but could require some large stretches be raised to accommodate new ceilings and would require a good handful of labor to relocate sprinklers.

On the other hand, while an all-new pipe arrangement may cost more in material, it would be better able to coordinate with new HVAC ductwork and ceilings in the space and could possibly reduce the labor time with a pre-fabricated install.

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

I've taken technical writing courses and have experience working with MasterSpec, US Military specifications, vendor specifications, and various ownership standard specifications.

I'm giving an internal training to our younger staff and I'm particularly interested in opinions from contractors and vendors who regularly read a variety of specifications for bidding.

What advice would you give for those who write specifications? I'd be interested in helping train our staff as well as improve myself.

Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe