A building owner has an existing mixed-use building which has approximately 6,000 sqft of storage space (S-1 Occupancy) and offices (larger than 6,000 sqft). The offices and storage appear to have a rated separation (steel studs, 2x gypsum on at least one side of the wall) in-between them.

The owner is looking to store new product in the warehouse, but would like for it to be sprinkler protected. This building, if new, would be under the 2015 International Building Code. 

As the building currently stands, it is a code-compliant mixed-use separated, non-sprinklered occupancy. 

Can the owner voluntarily provide a sprinkler system above code, but only for the warehouse portion?

If so, does anything with the fire barrier between the warehouse and office need to change?

As this is only a voluntary improvement to the property and life safety systems, I could see it being an alternative design method and seek approval from the AHJ under IBC Section 104.11 as a partially-protected building - I just wasn't sure if it even needed to come to that. Would be interested in other opinions, thank you in advance!

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Submitted anonymously and posted for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

A new healthcare building is being designed with a suite with no sleeping areas and full smoke detection. What is the required construction for the corridor walls?
a. smoke partition only
b. smoke barrier only
c. 1-hour fire resistance and smoke barrier
d. none of the above

Solution | Posted 09/03/20

A new community college building contains 26,000 sqft of small instructional classrooms, an entry lobby, restrooms, offices, and a 15,000 sqft auditorium is considered what type of occupancy?
a. Group A, Assembly
b. Group B, Business
c. Group E, Education
d. Mixed Use

Solution | Posted 09/02/20

An existing F1 occupancy with no high-piled storage is getting an addition, resulting in the total square footage for the entire F-1 area (all open) being over 50,000 ft sq, thus requiring smoke and heat vents per the 2012 IBC and IFC.

The question was asked if smoke and heat vents can just be added to the new addition and install a draft curtain to separate the existing from new, so smoke and heat vents will not be required in the existing space.

My question is, would a draft curtain be sufficient for creating a divided area in this regard?

There is no true definition of a divided area in either the building or fire codes. I wouldn’t think it would necessarily need to have a fire barrier or partition. I would assume a properly sized trap curtain would be sufficient?

Does anybody have any experience with this unique type of issue, or have any comments or suggestions?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​Submitted anonymously and posted for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

A four-story low-rise senior retirement living facility is being designed without the need for health support services. Which of the following areas which each serve the entire floor level require a minimum of one-hour fire resistance rating?
a. A 300 sqft laundry room
b. A 50 sqft trash room
c. A 100 sqft storage room
d. All of the above

Solution | Posted 08/17/20

Considering all potential components in a building, which of the following occupancies have the most restrictive requirements for material flame spread and smoke development
a. new day-care centers
b. existing duplex home
c. existing Class B department store
d. new large warehouse

Solution | Posted 08/12/20

Solution | Posted 07/31/20

Does anyone have much experience with fire pins/plugs as part of a fire door?

I came across some during a project to replace fire doors. There's a male and female component but ultimately a pin/plug is released at high temperature and goes into a hole to secure a pair of fire rated double doors.

My question is: are the pins just a substitute for a lower latch or is there some special code or regulatory driver for them?

​​​​​​Submitted anonymously and posted for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

A building addition is to connect two existing buildings of different construction types. Which of the following construction type arrangements is always permissible?
a. Provide the least fire-resistive construction type of the connected portions with no fire barrier separation
b. Provide 1-hour vertically aligned fire wall is installed between them to create separate buildings
c. Provide any construction type for the connection portion with 2-hour fire barrier between buildings
d. none of the above

Solution | Posted 07/22/20

I recently investigated some fire doors at one of our older buildings and saw they have an FM Approved label on them instead of a common UL Listing. I'm used to the UL listing label which clearly states the fire rating in minutes or hours. The FM label I saw gives some outdated ASTM standards and references a CABO report but doesn't clearly state the fire rating.

Does anyone have experience with the FM Approved fire door labels?

Based on my research, FM stopped approving fire doors a while ago. Thanks in advance.

​​​​​Submitted anonymously and posted for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Which of the following arrangements is not permitted for a new prison, under NFPA standards?
a. Sprinkler Protected, Type II (222) Construction, High-Rise Building
b. Sprinkler Protected, Type II (000) Construction, 3-Story Building
c. Sprinkler Protected, Type IV (2HH) Construction, 2-Story Building
d. Sprinkler Protected, Type V (000) Construction, 1-Story Building

Solution | Posted 07/15/20

Solution | Posted 07/09/20

I am working on a project with male and female restrooms in separate structures located near a park. The structures are roughly 500 sqft. The structures must comply with NFPA 101 for means of egress. I am trying to figure out travel distance requirements.

What occupancy would you classify the restrooms as? And in turn what would be the maximum travel distance if there is only a single door?

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

This building is an H-1 occupancy. There is an area of refuge on the 4th floor. The shelter-in-place Class 3 area of refuge is protected from interior and exterior hazards. There are vertical openings through all 4 floors. The UFC is governing.

Based on this, do the stairwells need to be intertied directly to the shelter-in-place area of refuge for an exit enclosure that is a direct accessible means of egress (we are providing accessibility provisions)? Does the shelter-in-place area need to be a smoke enclosure as well as the interconnected stairwell system?

Based on this will both the stairwell and the shelter-in-place need to be pressurized to meet design intent?

Both exterior and interior air is hazardous and a scrubber would be needed to inject air for stairwell pressurization.

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

I am dealing with a Military building. It is an H-1 occupancy. The building is currently 4 stories high.

This is not allowed per IBC based on means of egress.

Has anyone made an argument based on UFC referring to NFPA 101 for means of egress related items to make an H-1 occupancy allowed to be more than 1 story?

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

I am an architect and appreciate the information being shared here, very clear and helpful. We are working on an atrium and working in accordance the Closely-Spaced Sprinklers (for Atrium Enclosures).

In the details for the closely spaced sprinklers there is a horizontal distance of 4-12" from the glazing to the sprinkler - is there a separate vertical dimension that must be met? We have glass that is 11'-4" in an open/exposed ceiling that is 13'-5" high (at boundary of atrium).

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

Could Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer materials be considered non-combustible? For this project it's intended to be used as an interior building material.

NFPA 130 & NFPA 101 definition of non-combustible material:

4.7  Non-combustible material
A material that complies with any of the following shall be considered a noncombustible material [101:4.6.13.1].

1. A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors, when subjected to fire or heat. [101:4.6.13.1(1)]
2. A material that is reported as passing ASTM E136. [101:4.6.13.1)2)]
3. A material that is reported as complying with the pass/fail criteria of ASTM E136 when tested in accordance with the test method and procedure in ASTM E2652.  [101:4.6.13.1(3)]

Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials can meet the following minimum standards for flammability:

• ASTM E84:  Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials:  Flame spread 25
• ASTM D635:   Standard Test Method for Rate of Burning and/or Extent and Time of Burning of Plastics in a Horizontal Position:  Self-extinguish
• UL 94 Tests for Flammability of Plastic Materials for Parts in Devices and Appliances:  V-0

Can this material be considered an equivalent to non-combustible material?

​While Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials have an excellent fire resistance rating under ASTM and UL tests, it is not specifically classified as non-combustible under ASTM E136.

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

Have a 4-story townhouse, sprinklered in accordance with 13R.

Is a sprinkler at the top of an elevator shaft an acceptable trade off for a 1-hour rating of the shaft (in lieu of a 2-hour rating)?

NFPA 13R, 2013 Section 6.6.6 says sprinklers are not required in non-combustible elevator shafts in accordance with ANSI 17.1. The state is says they will not certify the elevator/does not require a certificate in a residential elevator, so there is no confirmation that the elevator code is upheld.

If the sprinkler is an acceptable trade off (or if the sprinkler is elected to be installed in excess of the code requirements) is then a shunt trip and flow switch/heat detector required to shut off power in the event of a sprinkler activation?

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

We have a dormitory project where, on the first floor, and entry lobby at the front entrance connects directly into a main corridor that runs the length of the dormitory. On either end of the corridor are exterior exits. There are also exit enclosures from the two upper levels that discharge to the exterior on both ends of the building. This project is under NFPA 101-2018 and is fully-sprinklered.

NFPA 101-2018 7.1.3.1 and 28.3.6 state the following:

7.1.3 Separation of Means of Egress.
7.1.3.1 Exit Access Corridors. Corridors used as exit access and serving an area having an occupant load exceeding 30 shall be separated from other parts of the building by walls having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with Section 8.3, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:
(1) This requirement shall not apply to existing buildings, provided that the occupancy classification does not change.
(2) This requirement shall not apply where otherwise provided in Chapters 11 through 43.

Because this is a new dormitory, Chapter 28 also applies:
28.3.6 Corridors.
28.3.6.1 Walls.
28.3.6.1.1 Exit access corridor walls shall comply with 28.3.6.1.2 or 28.3.6.1.3.
28.3.6.1.2 In buildings not complying with 28.3.6.1.3, exit access corridor walls shall consist of fire barriers in accordance
with Section 8.3 that have not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating.
28.3.6.1.3 In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
28.3.5, corridor walls shall have a minimum 1∕2-hour fire resistance rating.

Our question is - is the lobby, by code, considered part of the corridor (and therefore need to be rated)?

Two ways of looking at this - one is that the code is strictly only discussing requirements for the corridor and not a lobby. The other way of looking at it is that the lobby is acting as the corridor when it serves as part of the exit access for the building. 

Normally a 1/2-hour rating wouldn't make all that much of a difference, but there's storefront in the lobby space between an adjacent office and the lobby which would have a cost impact to the project.

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

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

Will you please clarify why a Building Area Increase is NOT permitted for an NFPA 13R design?

We are working on a project and the architect has stated that the calculations following IBC T506.2 allow for an area increase up to 135,000 sf. We are working in IBC 2015. The Owner would like confirmation that the 4 story R-2 Type V-A building can be protected under NFPA 13R when it is over 12,000 sf.

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

What occupancy type would you consider a building being used for powder coating of metal chassis?

The IBC lists F-2 (Low-Hazard Factory Industrial) as the occupancy for metal fabrication and assembly and basically the fabrication or manufacturing of non-combustible materials in which the processes do not involve a significant fire hazard.

Anything not listed as F-2 would be considered F-1 (Moderate-Hazard Factory Industrial).

In this building they bring in the metal chassis, send them through an oven to warm them up, then send them through another booth to standblast them. Then the chassis are powder-coated before going through a final oven to be cured.

In my opinion and past exeprience with powder coating it can be a pretty hazardous activity with explosive hazard and with finely divided particles. I do know the booth is pretty large for powder coating will need to have fire suppression. The big question is would be consider this building F-1 or F-2 requiring fire suppression throughout, as the building is well over 12,000 sqft in area. 

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

We have a non-conforming fraternity building that wants to build a new two-story covered entrance canopy that ties into the existing roof. It is a heavy timber construction and has no concealed spaces. The fire area is already too large, so our interpretation is this would trigger a sprinkler system in the whole building.

A more lenient interpretation might be to only sprinkler the new portion, and potentially add some rated separation between the existing non-sprinklered building and the new sprinklered entry canopy, but I am not aware and I can't find anything about separation between sprinklered and unsprinklered portions of a building. Would this arrangement be permissible by code?

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

High-rise office building, predominantly light hazard occupancy. Water supply is designed for a 30 minute duration (roof mounted gravity water storage tanks).

We need a 1-hour separation between two tenant spaces. The architect has specified a glass partition. As such closely spaced heads are being proposed to achieve an equivalent rating.

Does the water supply now need to be upgraded to provide a 1 hour supply of water?

Similarly, if sprinklers are being used to provide an equivalency rating on a required 2-hour rated partition, does the water supply need to be able to supply 2-hours of demand?

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

A small core area of a two-story office building has two stairs. One is a traditional enclosed exit stair fire-rated at 1-hour. The other stair is intended to be an "open access stair". The project is under NFPA 101 for means of egress and is sprinkler protected under NFPA 13.

NFPA 101 Chapter 38 New Business Occupancies
   NFPA 101 38.3 Protection
      NFPA 101 38.3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings
         NFPA 101 38.3.1.1 Vertical openings shall be enclosed or protected in accordance with Section 8.6, unless otherwise permitted by any of the following: (4) Exit access stairs in accordance with 38.2.4.6 shall permitted to be unenclosed.

         NFPA 101 38.2.4.6 A single means of egress shall be permitted for a maximum two-story, single-tenant space or building provided that both of the following criteria are met:
            (1) The building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).
            (2) The total travel to the outside does not exceed 100 ft.

The only way to have an unenclosed stair for this building is if the "total travel to the outside" can include travel through the unenclosed "exit access stair". 

Is it permissible to have one open stair and one enclosed stair with "total travel to the outside" going through the open access stair?

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