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
4 Comments
Grant
2/5/2020 12:53:06 pm
Yes, I believe sprinklers can be omitted here
Reply
Casey Milhorn
2/5/2020 04:50:47 pm
Just be careful. Local AHJ could have some input (as always) and I have ran into issues on board and care facilities where NFPA 101 (with something tied to IBC/IFC) disallowed the omission of sprinklers in a non combustible attic area and at non combustible canopies and overhangs. Doesn't sound like the case here, but be wary that other codes can come into play, as well as local AHJ requirements.
Reply
Shannon
2/6/2020 10:13:11 am
Piggy-backing on the above, an AHJ in my area has amended NFPA 13 (2013) 8.15.7.1 to state: Any canopy with the potential for extended vehicle standing or parking below must have sprinkler protection on the underside of the canopy.
Reply
Jonathan Sullivan
2/6/2020 10:46:44 am
Interesting points. It seems similar to the section Joe pointed out previously regarding alternate systems where you can not take bonuses for fully-sprinkled building if an alternate system is used.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop November '24 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
December 2024
PE PREP SERIES |