Does Only the Building Code Dictate Sprinklers?

7/26/2022

I live in a province in Canada with its own building code version and recently had a project for a very small, single-story building - an industrial class with an incinerator.

We were originally told that the building needed to be sprinklered so we designed a system for it. Since the system will cost a lot of money, the owners have hired a code consultant that concluded that the building does not need to be sprinklered as there is no requirement to sprinkler a single-story very small industrial building by the building code.

They make the argument that standards like NFPA 82 & NFPA 20 (for fire pumps) pertain to the equipment but not the building as those aspects are covered by the building code. They also mention this usage has been called into question and accepted in other Canadian provinces with similar code structures.

Noting that this argument is not specific to the incinerator or NFPA 82 but any equipment or room covered by an NFPA standard, I'm wondering if anyone has heard a similar argument or has other experience in another jurisdiction.

Does the usage here drive a requirement for fire sprinkler protection?

Is this the correct approach here?

Thanks in advance.

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

9 Comments

Anthony

7/26/2022 07:39:28 am

In broad strokes building code says when NFPA says how.

Check the Canadian building code and see when it references use of NFPA 13 or otherwise. Canada writes its own code so make sure you're looking at that and not IBC/ICC model codes.

Todd E Wyatt

7/26/2022 08:31:33 am

The 2020 National Building Code (NBC) of Canada () is the scoping Code which determines WHERE automatic sprinkler systems (ASPS) are required. Per the 2020 NBC (https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/ft/?id=515340b5-f4e0-4798-be69-692e4ec423e8), it includes (44) instances of the reference “… shall be sprinklered …” based on Occupancy Classification (OC)

3.2.2.15. Storeys below Ground … the basements shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.2.2.20. Group A, Division 1, Any Height, Any Area, Sprinklered … except as permitted by Sentences 3.2.2.7.(1) and 3.2.2.18.(2), the building shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.2.2.23. Group A, Division 2, Any Height, Any Area, Sprinklered … except as permitted by Sentences 3.2.2.7.(1) and 3.2.2.18.(2), the building shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.2.2.29. Group A, Division 3, Any Height, Any Area, Sprinklered … except as permitted by Sentences 3.2.2.7.(1) and 3.2.2.18.(2), the building shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.2.2.30. Group A, Division 3, up to 2 Storeys … If intended for occasional use for trade shows and similar exhibition purposes, a building referred to in Sentence (1) that is more than 1 500 m2 in building area shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.2.2.32. Group A, Division 3, One Storey, Increased Area … If intended for occasional use for trade shows and similar exhibition purposes, a building referred to in Sentence (1) that is more than 1 500 m2 in building area shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.2.2.36. Group B, Division 1, Any Height, Any Area, Sprinklered … except as permitted by Sentences 3.2.2.7.(1) and 3.2.2.18.(2), the building shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.2.2.38. Group B, Division 2, Any Height, Any Area, Sprinklered … except as permitted by Sentences 3.2.2.7.(1) and 3.2.2.18.(2), the building shall be sprinklered throughout …
3.3.5.4. Repair and Storage Garages … Except for open-air storeys, every storey of a storage garage or repair garage located below grade shall be sprinklered …

The IBC also includes protection requirements by an ASPS based on the building’s Occupancy Classifications (OC).

Robert Hughes

7/26/2022 08:15:25 am

Plenty of officials and architects are willing to parse Building Code in efforts to dam NFPA upstream.
They then put the onus on the building owners to protect the life safety of the occupants.
"Safety First" seems no longer relevant.
It's the Almighty Dollar

7/26/2022 08:18:17 am

See "3.2.2.18. Automatic Sprinkler System Required" in the OBC 2012. I have seen code consultants use alternative solutions to get away from certain aspects of fire protection in the past which may be happening here. However an alternative solution still has to be approved by the AHJ.

Dan Wilder

7/26/2022 08:24:37 am

As the building code has several sections specific to non-sprinklered structures, including all the limitations of # of floors, sq footage, construction requirements, egress distances, and many additional requirements that typically go away by adding the sprinkler system (and in most cases cost less) is possible. I am sure there is some level of fire resistance for a building that can be achieved that would be a better path than providing fire sprinklers, but it is definitely the exception and not the rule.

I recently finished a 90' tall tower that was not designated as a high rise and was not required to comply with any of the provisions for automatic standpipes or water supply redundancy (floors were sprinklered and FDC provides the PSI for the hose valves at the roof). The reasoning was that the building was made around a manufacturing process that needed to be vertical (think raw material refining, mixing, combining, and pressing of pills) and the AHJ allowed it via appeal. The floors were only a couple thousand feet each and several mid/partial level platforms included, one interior (rated) stairwell and one exterior and exposed stairwell (two standpipes). I just documented everything on the sprinkler plans, made a sign for the FDC requirements and everything was approved, installed, and green tagged.

Unusual, sure, but not out of the realm. Just keep the documentation as a just in case.

Matt C

7/26/2022 08:30:18 am

Sounds like Ontario. Typically, if you're installing equipment to an NFPA Standard, you still follow the standard. Usually it's to sprinkler the service room/equipment room ONLY. I usually see "domestic" systems in these scenarios, since the building code doesn't require the entire building to be sprinklered (I'm assuming this is an F2 or an F3 less than 600m2, aka a part 9 building?)

That being said, there are many reasons to sprinkler the building anyway. Usually a conversation worth having. I usually get building owners from the maintenance perspective. It's a lot of work to test heat detectors if you have fire alarm vs a sprinkler system. Anyway, just my $0.02.

Alex

7/26/2022 08:31:50 am

Hi,

I live over in Mass so confirm the same approach for your providence but...

780CMR (2018 IBC with amendments) states when a building needs sprinkler protection. This is based on area, height, number of stories, and construction type. Then, depending on the above, Chapter 9 states how to design the sprinkler system. Chapter 9 references NFPA standards that are then followed.

NFPA standards are not code and do not drive when a system is required.

Thanks,
Alex

Clement

7/26/2022 11:06:54 am

Hello from Dieppe,NB

The NBC 2015 article 3.6.2.5. that we are still using in New-Brunswick Canada does say that a sprinkler system is required in a combustible refuse storage.

If this room would fall under this article because of storage of refuse yes it would be required to have sprinklers in that area, but only that area of the building not the complete building.

My 5cent worth,,,

Corey Eppinghaus

7/26/2022 03:13:15 pm

If you are using the NBC or the OBC, the building 3.2.2 would tell you if you do or do not need them, that being said you do need cover all of the bases as some places call for local sprinklers but also could provide some relaxation if say the walls are 2H instead of 1H see 3.6.2.5.OBC as it sends you to 3.6.3.3.(9) that calls for a higher fire separation rating.

Does Only the Building Code Dictate Sprinklers?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES