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

We have a residential R-2 occupancy, four-story, combustible Type V-B, new construction building with an NFPA 13 system. The floor/ceiling assemblies are built with open-web wood trusses. 

All of the interstitial spaces around these trusses are to be filled with non-combustible insulation, which allows sprinklers to be omitted within them in accordance with NFPA 13-2013 8.15.1.2.7 "concealed spaces filled with noncombustible insulation shall not require sprinkler protection."

The IBC (2015) requires drafstopping in combustible construction to "subdivide floor ceiling assemblies" above an in-line with dwelling unit and sleeping unit separations (IBC 2015 718.3.2). However, an exception exists for buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 (an NFPA 13 system).

If these spaces omit sprinklers due to non-combustible insulation, is draftstopping still required per the IBC?

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

​I know a material (with a certain published flame spread index and smoke development index).

How I can determine if it is suitable for a building?

Specifically, how can I determine which types of buildings it would be suitable for (apartments, industrial, educational, etc.)?

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

Do all rated walls (fire partition, fire barrier, fire wall) need to run to the floor deck or roof to the next story above? 

Is there any scenario where we can put a rated lid and not continue the rated partition or fire barrier up to the deck above? 

This project is under IBC 2015, but I'm just looking for guidance on where I can get this answered in the future. Thanks in advance.

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

We have 2x4 wood studs which are spaced 16-inches on center. There's a layer of 3/8" gypsum board on each side, plus on one side there's 1 layer of 3/8" plywood (douglas fir).

How do I determine the fire resistance rating of this partition assembly?

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

One of our client requires fire resistance paint for cables in cable cellar, fire stops and fire door.

Can anyone suggest me which code or standard to be referred for designing these passive fire protection systems?

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

I have a 2-hour fire rated barrier and need to choose code-compliant firestop. The firestop has different ratings (F, T, and L) - which is applicable?

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

Being told I need two fire dampers to serve a single fire wall. The fire wall is made of a "double wall", essentially two masonry walls next to each other with a very small (less than 2-inch) air gap in-between. The engineer on the project is stating that this "double wall" requires a fire damper in each.

I've never come across this as a requirement before. Do I need two fire dampers?

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

Solution | Posted 09/27/19

An architectural detail for a project we're bidding shows EIFS being used to wrap the outside of a large overhang above a pickup/drop off area for a building. 

We're looking at whether sprinklers are required below the canopy, and the applicable section that would apply to omit sprinklers would be NFPA 13-2016 8.15.7.3:

"8.15.7.3 Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted from below the exterior projections of combustible construction, provided the exposed finish material on the exterior projections are noncombustible, limited-combustible, or fire retardant–treated wood as defined in NFPA 703..."

My question is, is EIFS considered combustible or limited-combustible? As best I can tell it's considered combustible but am interested if others have already dug into this in more detail. Thanks in advance.

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

​A continuous membrane with a fire protection rating constructed to limit the spread of fire is which of the following?
a. smoke partition
b. fire compartment
c. fire barrier
d. proscenium wall

Solution | Posted 09/09/19

Solution | Posted 09/05/19

I'm looking for basic to intermediate online training for means of egress and passive fire protection topics for myself and my team.

Any tips for finding quality continuing education in this arena? We work mostly with the IBC, but occasionally with NFPA 101 as well.

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

Solution | Posted 09/03/19

Our project has a proposed layout includes convenience stairs next to a corridor that serves restrooms, utility spaces, and doors to large open office areas. It's a B-occupancy subject to NFPA 101 requirements.

As a side note, the International Building Code (2018) makes it clear that two-story openings are permitted in occupancies other than I-2 and I-3 when they meet certain limitations, per section 712.1.9. One of the limitations it that is it not open to a corridor, but that's in Group I or R occupancies only. Group I and R occupancies require special treatment for corridors.

NFPA 101 has similar provisions for Convenience Openings (Section 8.6.9). One of the requirements is that "such openings shall be separated from corridors", per section 8.6.9.1(3). If corridors in a building are not required to be separated (such as for an open-office B occupancy), does this requirement still apply, or is this section saying that we have to have rated corridors whenever we have convenience stair openings?

   8.6.9 Convenience Openings.
  8.6.9.1 Where permitted by Chapters 11 through 43, unenclosed vertical openings not concealed within the building construction shall be permitted as follows:
   (1) Such openings shall connect not more than two adjacent stories (one floor pierced only).
   (2) Such openings shall be separated from unprotected vertical openings serving other floors by a barrier complying
with 8.6.5.
   (3)* Such openings shall be separated from corridors.
   (4)* In other than approved, existing convenience openings, such openings shall be separated from other fire or smoke compartments on the same floor.
   (5) In new construction, the convenience opening shall be separated from the corridor referenced in 8.6.9.1(3) by a smoke partition, unless Chapters 11 through 43 require the corridor to have a fire resistance rating.
   (6)* Such openings shall not serve as a required means of egress.

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

Do you have any thoughts or input on the interior exit stair penetration limitations of Section 1023.5 of the IBC? 

I have someone contending that you aren’t allowed to run a “bulk feed” main into a stairtower and then back out again on a different level.  They claim that 1023.5 limits penetrations only to MEP equipment that serves the stairwell itself.  I contend that, especially as clarified in the 2018 edition (although I contend that it was always the intent), any fire protection system is allowed to penetrate such a stairtower as needed, as long as the penetrations are correctly firestopped etc…
 
The confusion comes from the 2015 edition, which reads (emphasis added to indicate the confusion that I think this person is having):

“Penetrations into or through interior exit stairways and ramps are prohibited except for equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization, sprinkler piping, standpipes, electrical raceway for fire department communication systems and electrical race-way serving the interior exit stairway and ramp and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches.  Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714.  There shall not be penetrations or communication openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent interior exit stairways and ramps.”
 
I believe that that person is seeing that “serving the interior exit stairway and ramp” portion of that snippet, and they are applying it to everything.  However, I contend that that is actually applying specifically to “…and electrical race-way serving the interior exit stairway and ramp and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches”.  I think that the person is cherry picking what they want it to say, although it is somewhat confusing the way it’s all written on one line.  I believe that if that person really wanted to apply this verbatim, then you would not even be allowed to have combined standpipes that feed sprinkler systems outside the stairwell, or even dedicated sprinkler risers in the stairwell wouldn’t be allowed to serve any floor area outside the stairwell.  Basically any sprinkler riser in a stairwell would only be allowed to feed that specific stairwell…  I think it’s clear that this is not the intent of the code.

Read More Here

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

Solution | Posted 08/21/19