Code Path for Sprinklers at Detached Structure?

5/15/2024

I have a canopy that is completely detached from a building (school) and is an entirely a separate structure. The canopy has no walls and is not in an egress pathway. The canopy is used for bicycle storage and bicycles are not stored overnight.

Is there any code path to require sprinklers underneath this canopy?

If not, what is the code path to omit fire sprinkler protection? Thanks for your help!

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

31 Comments

Chad

5/15/2024 08:06:55 am

Need more info:

How far from other structures?
How many square feet?
What codes are you under?

Matt

5/15/2024 12:50:10 pm

This is detached from the building and separated by about 6"
Approximately 2500 sq ft.
Code path used IBC 503

sean

5/15/2024 08:04:40 pm

did the designer treat it as a separate building or same building?

if there is no invisible lot line it may need to be treated as part of the same building. then it would need to meet an exception from NFPA 13

robert bennett

5/16/2024 07:08:56 am

Matt,
Question: if the CODE requires sprinkler protection throughout the fire area, (903..2.3 #1) how can NFPA 13 then reduce the level of protection? Keep in mind that NFPA 13 is a STANDARD not a code and has no force or effect unless it is adopted by reference in a CODE.

Glenn Berger

5/15/2024 08:14:35 am

Chad asked the first round of questions. In addition:

What is the Construction Type of the adjacent structure?

What is the construction type of the canopy that is under consideration?

What are the exposure condition of the existing structure?

Matt

5/15/2024 12:54:16 pm

Wood building (Type 3B I believe)
Canopy is Steel (non combustible
Not sure what you mean by exposure condition? There is no exposure protection.

Pete H

5/15/2024 08:21:09 am

Your code path is likely going to be in IBC. Likely in Chapter 9.

It will depend on square footage of the bike storage pavilion, the construction types, the distance of separation, exposure protection, and all the other things Glenn and Chad were nice enough to ask about.

Todd E Wyatt

5/15/2024 08:23:46 am

Based on the scoping Code (e.g. IBC-2021), review of the Automatic Sprinkler Systems (ASPS) requirements starts in Chapter 9 Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems based on the Occupancy Classification (OC) which would either be Group U - Utility or Group S-2 Low-hazard Storage.

Group U - Utility structures do NOT require protection from an automatic sprinkler system (ASPS) per :

IBC-2021
Chapter 9 Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems
Section 903 Automatic Sprinkler Systems
903.2 Where Required

Group S-2 Low-hazard Storage DO require protection from an ASPS but ONLY if they are a Parking Garage (903.2.10 Group S-2 Parking Garages).

The AHJ shall verify the OC (Group U or S-2) of this structure but based on the limited info provided, I would interpret that an ASPS is NOT required

Pete H

5/15/2024 01:45:20 pm

This is the answer.

Andrew

5/15/2024 02:56:50 pm

Assuming this structure is just considered Group E to match the main school building, wouldn't this still fall under IBC 903 to provide sprinkler protection throughout the "Fire Area" which IBC 202 defines as the area within exterior walls and excludes any surrounding area that are not included within the horizontal projection of the roof?

Anthony Brown

5/15/2024 08:50:54 am

All good comments but my question is this, can the structure trap heat to ensure head activation?

Steve Cooper

5/15/2024 09:47:02 am

I am assuming it is the standard thin vinyl canopy used at schools/ public areas. I believe it might burn before heads go off. If protection is required, using a low temp sprinkler could solve that issue. Maybe a 135 Degree head.

Matt

5/15/2024 12:56:00 pm

There is good reason to believe you could get heads to activate.

Jack G

5/15/2024 09:36:15 am

As all have indicated above, not enough info.
1. Is the main building protected by fire sprinklers?
2. Is the exterior wall of each structure properly fire rated?
3. Does the main building have exposure protection.
4. Height and separation distance of utility building? 50 ft minimum.
5. Types of construction? Non combustible or combustible?

Wes

5/15/2024 12:52:06 pm

Jack, where is your 50-ft minimum separation coming from? Most buildings are not separated by 50-ft minimum.

Matt

5/15/2024 12:58:25 pm

1. Yes
2. Yes it is fire rated
3. No exposure protection
4. Canopy is about 6" separation from building
5. Combustible Main building and Non Combustible canopy.

Steve Cooper

5/15/2024 09:44:30 am

I have run into a similar scenario with a Retirment home/ apartment complex. It had a separated canopy in the center of the project not connected by any walls the main building. The AHJ agreed we did not need fire sprinklers underneath, but it was also a canopy for a pool. There is nothing combustible about bicycle storage. I would ask your AHJ if they would like to see protection, since they have the final say.

Ricardo Gonzales Jr

5/15/2024 11:37:25 am

The 1st question should be, What is the occupancy of this tent? Has the architect assigned this to any occupancy other than a U?
It is possible that this structure would have no sprinkler as it is: 1: not tempered, 2: not enclosed and 3: Potentially not >12k sq feet in size.

The Architect needs to define these parameters before digging deeper into Code (IBC/IFC) to determine if a sprinkler system is needed.

I've seen Circus Tents just below 12k square feet with no sprinklers.

Robert Bennett

5/15/2024 12:56:17 pm

The answer is a little more complicated that y'all have addressed The question is this "is the canopy connected to the main building" if the answer is yes then the canopy is part of the main building (even though it does not have walls) and falls under the definition of "area, building" . When the canopy or any projection of the building that essentially cast a shadow is considered inside the gross area of the building. If the school building crosses the sprinkler requirement threshold of the IBC or IFC (typically 12,000 Sq. Ft.) then the "shall be provided...throughout all Group E fire areas" kicks in and requires the installation of fire sprinklers.
This is not a clear an answer as it could be because NFPA 13 exempts sprinkler coverage under canopies that are made of non-combustible materials and that are not used for storage. This car port in front of a hotel/motel for dropping off people. If however storage in indicated by the question (bicycles) then the AHJ would have to consider if the heat release from a pile of burning bicycles is enough to pose a hazard to the building.

The answer is not clear. The "CODE" says sprinkler thought-out and the STANDARD which is adopted by the CODE and is SUBORDINANT to the CODE allows for the exclusion of the sprinklers if the NFPA 13 criterial discussed above is met.

In the end the AHJ needs to be consulted and has the final decision.

Andrew

5/15/2024 03:14:42 pm

Since, it's detached I'm not sure IBC's definition of a Fire Area (used in IBC 903) requires protection to extend into this canopy. Regardless of the construction type, separation, or loading. The only test is if it's included within the horizontal projection of the roof. It sounds like this one is not.

If it WERE attached, then it may fall under NFPA-13 8.15.7 Exterior Projections and be eligible for omission, even if e-bikes are used. Especially, with A8.15.7.2 saying that "vehicles that are temporarily parked are not considered storage".

Robert Bennett

5/15/2024 03:23:23 pm

The canopy is definitely in the fire area if it is attached. If it is not it has to be considered as part of the main building or separated unless it complied with the 2 buildings on the same lot requirement of IBC 503.1.2

Matt

5/15/2024 01:10:59 pm

The canopy is a completely detached structure. Does it matter if its 6", or 20ft?
Does it matter if it is combustible or non-combustible?
The canopy does not follow the same roof projection of the main building.

Robert Bennett

5/15/2024 01:51:48 pm

For buildings on the same lot and separation requirements see IBC 503.1.2. Buildings on the same lot.

Andrew

5/15/2024 02:47:18 pm

How does IBC 503.1.2 require sprinklers, or supersede IBC 903 that limits fire sprinkler protection throughout the "Fire Area", which IBC 202 defines as the area within exterior walls and excludes any surrounding area that are not included within the horizontal projection of the roof?

Robert Bennett

5/15/2024 03:20:15 pm

ANDREW, keep reading the definition it goes on to say
[BF] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and
bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal
assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area
if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of
the roof or floor next above.

IBC 503.1.2 refers to someone's question about how far apart the canopy would need to be from the building to be considered a separate building or what fire separation would be required.

Andrew

5/15/2024 06:37:21 pm

Thanks Robert,
Even if 503.1.2 determines that the two buildings can be considered as one, is there something there that would supersede 903 which limits where fire sprinklers are required (to the "fire area")?

If the canopy is not enclosed within the exterior walls and is not within the horizontal projection of the roof, then it doesn't seem to be part of the fire area that needs protection per 903.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Robert Bennett

5/16/2024 06:59:10 am

Andrew, In response to your 19:30 posting.

If you read the definition of FIRE AREA area the last sentence reads "...Areas of the building not provided
with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area
if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of
the roof or floor next above.

If you read the definition of BUILDING AREA the last sentence reads "...Areas of the building not
provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the
building area if such areas are included within the horizontal
projection of the roof or floor above.

The language is the same so the area under the PROJECTION is in the fire area and the building area.

Now if the canopy is not connected or under the projection of the roof or a roof overhang it is a separate building and must comply with IBC 503.1.2 would apply because now you have two buildings on the same lot.

503.1.2 Buildings on same lot. Two or more buildings on
the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or
shall be considered as portions of one building where the
building height, number of stories of each building and the
aggregate building area of the buildings are within the
limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions
of this code applicable to the aggregate building
shall be applicable to each building.

The decision to regulate as separate buildings or as one building is the design professionals choice, BUT THEY HAVE TO DO ONE OR THE OTHER.

If they choose to regulate as one building then IBC 903 kicks in for the 12,000 Sq. Ft. limitation for un-sprinklered E use groups buildings. Remember that the canopy is part of the fire area and building area based on the definition if the design professional chooses the one building approach.

If the design professional chooses to regulate them as two separate buildings then they must define the imaginary lot line and comply with Table 602 for exterior wall ratings based on distance to the lot line.

Many times the answer can not be determined solely in NFPA 13 and the related water based fire protection STANDARDS. Keep in mind that standards generally tell us how to do something and the CODES tell us where.

If the exterior wall of the school has an hourly rating that allows for a zero clearance to the lot line (1 hour with opening that comply with IBC chapter 7) AND no combustible overhangs, soffits etc. then they could have a zero to 5 foot separation and be allowed to build the canopy. If the exterior wall does not provide the required hourly rating or has combustible overhangs or non-compliant openings then the design professional has no choice but to provide the ratings or regulate it all as one building and provide the IBC chapter 9 compliant suppression system. (Nothing says it has to be sprinklers)

Andrew

5/16/2024 03:01:35 pm

Robert - Thanks for your input.
On 'fire area' and 'building area' definitions, I'm familiar with the full definitions. I find the important terms here are "enclosed and bounded by ... exterior walls" and "within the horizontal projection of the roof".

The IBC commentary on the Building Area definition, expounds on this saying, "The roof overhang on portions of a building where there are exterior enclosure walls does not add to the building area because the area is defined by exterior walls."

In other words, the main school 'building area' and 'fire area' are defined simply by these exterior walls. (Note ... neither of the definitions depend on the canopy being connected or not, nor separation distance, nor fire ratings of exterior walls)

SO, for an outdoor canopy that is...
(1) OUTSIDE THE EXTERIOR WALLS and
(2) NOT WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF ... it is NOT within the Fire Area. Agree or disagree?

This is the test posed in 903 in defining the fire area needing an automatic sprinkler system.

The problem with the IBC 503.1.2 argument is that it's (1) not obvious to a fire sprinkler contractor if the building official is deciding to view the canopy as part of one building or as a separate building. And (2) does not matter because they still fall under the "fire area" test above.

If it is considered ONE building but outside the "fire area" then it doesn't require sprinklers.
If it is TWO buildings then it will likely be too small to trigger the 903 sprinkler requirement. (eg. <12,000 sq.ft. bike parking canopy).

Your last sentence did not make sense to me.
"... If the exterior wall does not provide the required hourly rating or has combustible overhangs or non-compliant openings then the design professional has no choice but to provide the ratings or regulate it all as one building and provide the IBC chapter 9 compliant suppression system. (Nothing says it has to be sprinklers)"
903.2.3 Group E says, "An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group E occupancies as follows: (1) Throughout all Group E fire areas greater than 12,000 sq.ft. ..."
That specifically requires sprinklers and limits the required coverage to the "fire area".
How are you getting past that definition and saying one must "provide the IBC chapter 9 compliant suppression system"?

Grateful for your input.

Franck

5/15/2024 01:38:28 pm

If there is no electric bike (no possible thermal runaway from li-ion battery), I see no good reason to provide protection.
- Bikes are not really combustible
- This is definitely not a storage
- Canopy is not combustible and is therefore not an exposure by itself

Ask yourself these simple questions : if there was no canopy but you put bikes in the same area, would you require to provide a fire protection system over (deluge, for example, as sprinklers are not possible if no roof) ? Or exposure protection on the main building walls ?
The answer is probably no
What is the added fire exposure from the canopy ?
None
Then, why put sprinklers ?
Just because you put a sun/rain protection on the bikes ?

I won’t protect it and the AHJ should not be too hard to convince

Conrad

5/15/2024 04:09:59 pm

One issue with the covered storage of bicycles is electric bicycles (e-bikes) and the lithium batteries inside. Depending on the location-specific codes, minimum spacing distances may apply from either building or fire AHJ. A 6-inch separation where the existing building is of wood type III construction may depend on the existing building overhang distance and if the existing building is protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system

Callback to an earlier topic on e-bikes in this forum: https://www.meyerfire.com/daily/best-practice-to-address-e-bike-fire-concerns

Robert Bennett

5/17/2024 11:55:20 am

Look at the larger picture not just the bikes at a school. If it were a canopy with retail merchandise that was flammable then does your answer change?

The rules are there to provide direction in broad concepts. Yes if I was a consultant I could argue that a canopy over a bike rack does not need sprinklers, as a building official I can also argue that NFPA 13 exceptions do not apply where the building/fire code has a specific requirement like "sprinklered throughout"

The answer is not just about a bike rack it is intended to get you to think outside of just NFPA 13 and look at the bigger picture.

Code Path for Sprinklers at Detached Structure?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES