Omit Fire Sprinkler in Auditory Testing Booth?

5/31/2021

Does anyone have experience with auditory testing booths?

We have a 6-ft x6-ft audiology testing booth with a fully enclosed ceiling. It is about 7-ft tall and has been installed in a school for over seven years. Recently on an inspection, it was noted that it was required to have a sprinkler. I have dug through the code and can't see where it would not be required.

The only thing I found was in IBC 903.3.1.1.2 that it is "A room or space where sprinklers are considered undesirable because of the nature of the contents, where approved by the fire code official." In that case, it looks like we could add a smoke detector in there if it was approved by the code official.

They are very similar to office pods or even walk-in coolers and they are required in those situations. Because of the nature of the booth, I'm getting a lot of pushback from the users of the booth.

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

18 Comments

Franck

5/31/2021 08:20:32 am

Several questions in my answer :
- do you have a significant combustible load inside the booth (that would require sprinkler protection)
- do you have a sprinkler protection above the booth (or around it), that would control the fire spread if it starts inside the booth ?
In most cases, I would personally won’t require a sprinkler protection if the unprotected area is less than 100 sq ft within a fully adequately sprinklered building, unless you have the following conditions :
- significant combustible load inside or aggravating conditions such as flammable/combustible liquids
- several such « small » unprotected booths which, if you combine the area, would represent a threat for the building sprinkler protection

As an example, I have seen small offices (for a guard, or to house a computer) within a production building (or warehouse) and if less than 100 sq ft, considered the situation as acceptable

If you provide sprinkler inside, I would recommend recessed sprinkler or sprinkler with guards

Chad

5/31/2021 08:40:12 am

I concur with this except the 100sq ft, too large of an area to except, in my opinion. There are reasonable exceptions if the fire load is negligible.

And there are exceptions that prove the rule. Recently has a restaurant build a 4x8’ 4-5’ tall wooden box with a solid metal roof to hold trash cans… that is literally going to be filled with a sizeable fire load and ideally configured for rapid fire growth at times….inside. They couldn’t change it to a perforated roof due to the fact they wanted to store garbage in it, inside the dining room (yes that sounds like an awful idea). They had to drop a head in or find another place to store the trash, they found another place.

franck

6/1/2021 11:29:02 am

The 100 sq ft “rule of thumb” is coming from the fact that sprinklers at the ceiling level should cover 100 sq ft each (sometimes more, but 100 sq ft is normally the maximum for EH and storage).
This being said, if the unprotected area is less than 100 sq ft, it will obstruct max one head and you will control the fire with the first ring around (if you take a square, to be conservative, it will end up with 9 sprinklers in addition to the one obstructed, ie 10).
It is a large area, you will end up with more smoke and water damage than with just one head inside, but you will save your building and damages will be somehow limited (except if other adverse conditions exist).
I am not saying that sprinkler inside would not be beneficial, but saying that no sprinkler inside might be acceptable.

The same way, you don’t protect all cupboards, underneath all tables, all small footprint cabinets, etc.

Anechoic chamber is another issue and should be protected (just remember to put upright sorinklers in the pendent position as the goal is to spray the water towards the combustible cones).

Glenn Berger

5/31/2021 08:55:19 am

I have used this exact clause to not provide a sprinkler in a "piece of equipment." Be careful on the installing of any type of smoke detector as it may also have detrimental effects of the testing apparatus.

Pete

5/31/2021 09:48:06 am

I absolutely loathe when people want to "push back", but they can't formulate an argument, because they don't know the first thing about it. So you end up with, "We never had to have a sprinkler before.", and a bunch of other nonsensical permutations.
Are there ever kids in the booth? Assuming this is where they put the cans on and respond with the keyboard arrows which ear they hear a pure sine wave tone in, it needs a sprinkler.

Zev Schramm

5/31/2021 04:31:26 pm

A sprinkler is definitely indicated, and should be installed.

Since there is pushback, the question then becomes an engineering judgement - is this a reasonable place to make an exception? Without knowing the exact details of the situation, my primary concern would be that the various foams and insulations used to sound proof the booth could be quite flammable. This means an exception should NOT be made, and a sprinkler SHOULD be installed.

I would work with the users of the booth to better understand and address their concerns. Presumably they think the sprinkler will negatively impact the soundproofing of the booth. This can probably be mitigated by proper air sealing of the sprinkler pipe at the penetration, and by adding additional insulation around the pipe. A flex-head style pipe or sprinkler may be desirable to help isolate the booth from building vibration.

Jay

6/1/2021 08:08:36 am

Doesn't the ceiling of the booth represent an obstruction over 4ft in width that prevents the sprinkler discharge from reaching the hazard?

James

6/1/2021 08:13:28 am

Yes, it does.

6/1/2021 08:13:05 am

I have not worked on an anechoic chamber myself, but they do make telescoping sprinklers (which I believe are FM approved) that are on flexible drops (to avoid sound transmission) and only drop down into the space with activation.

Just a quick search kicked this out: https://www.sprinklerinnovations.com/

Not inexpensive, but it does address the challenge and keeps protection within this area. As I understand it, NFPA 13 requires coverage throughout a building except for specific areas, and this would not be one of them.

Brad K

6/1/2021 10:51:21 am

I too have seen these used in the past.

Jesse

6/1/2021 09:29:21 am

I think instead of trying to find a place in 13 that says a sprinkler is required - you should begin with the presumption that protection is required, and then look for a code section allowing you to omit it.

6/1/2021 09:34:03 am

Agreed; NFPA 13 says as much right at the beginning (2016 Edition):

Chapter 4 General Requirements
4.1 Level of Protection. A building, where protected by an automatic sprinkler system installation, shall be provided with sprinklers in all areas except where specific sections of this standard permit the omission of sprinklers.

6/5/2021 03:00:20 am

From a code perspective, sprinkler would certainly be required because of the obstruction.
But from a fire exposure/hazard perspective? And possible consequences in case of fire ?
Working for a property damage insurance company, and acting as an AHJ at a certain level, we always make the balance cost/benefit.
If the result of omitting sprinkler is an uncontrolled fire, it is definitely required.

In that case, with a small footprint, and probably not such a big combustible load nor a serious aggravating factor, there are high chances that the fire would be controlled by the ceiling sprinklers without sprinkler inside the booth.
In that case, we would probably consider the situation as acceptable (and maybe make a recommendation for reliability).
What would be the situation if it was a big storage box/crate with limited combustible content 6’ x 6’? Would you require sprinkler inside the box ?
And with an equipment (tool machine, electric cabinet) 6’ x 6’ : would you ask for sprinkler inside (which is sometimes impossible) ot consider the situation as acceptable?

This is why insurance companies work with loss scenarios, one of them being the NLE (Normal Loss Expectancy), i.e.: the consequences of a fire in the area with the actual conditions and fire protection systems in service (no impairment).
And for recommended improvement, we make an NLE before (actual situation) and NLE after (if recommendation is implemented).
If there is no difference or if the difference is small compared to the cost of implementation (NLE / Cost), then it is considered acceptable.
But again, this is not a code/standard approach, it is an acceptability approach.

sean

6/5/2021 07:27:48 am

I would not accept that section as justification. I would tell you to put a head in there. It doesn't help the case you are asking for forgiveness instead of permission.

Mike

6/9/2021 08:17:17 am

Ask the AHJ. The auditory rooms could be considered pre-manufactured furniture where a sprinkler head may not be required. On the other side, I've had to put sprinkler heads in pre-manufactured phone booths. It all depends on the AHJ's interpretation.

6/9/2021 10:44:35 am

In my opinion using the furniture exemption does not apply. You do not occupy furniture.

JOSEPH GLASKI link

10/20/2021 10:01:37 am

See NFPA 13:(2019).9..2.10 -Sprinkler are not required in hearing booths.

10/21/2021 10:41:14 am

9.2.10 is for unoccupiable equipment enclosures. A hearing testing booth is an occupiable space

Omit Fire Sprinkler in Auditory Testing Booth?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES