Sprinkler Required for Open-Air Courtyard?

1/27/2022

I have an existing office building and we are renovating one floor. The building has an existing sprinkler system.

In the middle of the office floor, there is an outdoor patio (I believe all non-combustible) and it is open to the air above. It is 6' x 6' and surrounded by glass on all 4 sides.

There are currently no sprinklers protecting this courtyard and we are being told that there needs to be.

I am not sure which part of NFPA 13 I would even look at since Section 8.15 only discusses exterior projections and the like. Nothing about an open-air courtyard.

I would appreciate any help. There is room to install dry sidewalls above the glass even though the sprinklers would be watering the outside.

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

17 Comments

Dan Wilder

1/27/2022 07:05:09 am

No structure overhead to provide heat collection=no sprinklers.

This isn't going to fall under any sort of exposure protection requirements and there is no open floor to floor ability for smoke/heat to transfer.

I would request what section of the IFC/NFPA (or amendment) that is being referenced to provide compliance with.

Anthony

1/27/2022 07:17:50 am

As Dan said, no roof/ceiling no sprinkler.

It may be a worthwhile exercise to investigate egress from that area.

Mike L

1/27/2022 07:42:59 am

Perhaps the AHJ is requesting protection for both sides of the glass around the courtyard, or misinterpreting the drawings as a skylight.

Otherwise, have a quick chat with the AHJ and ask for clarification.

Pete H

1/27/2022 07:44:23 am

Agree with the comments. No NFPA 13 guidance.

If FM or AHJ is telling you it needs protection, provide the one dry sidewall head (should be more than enough to protect a 6' x 6' space).

If the client is telling you it needs protection, remind them they need to pay the extra couple hundred to potentially over a thousand bucks for the dry head, engineering, and labor and see if they still want it. If they do, charge them and provide it.

(In my opinion. Take with grain of salt).

Glenn Berger

1/27/2022 08:18:02 am

The requirement to provide some sort of fire protection system comes from NFPA 101, with the fact that anyone in the courtyard must (re-)enter the building to get to an egress point.

You can protect the glass with closely space sprinklers, you can provide manual; fire alarm pull stations in the courtyard, fire alarm notification appliances, etc.

Jay

1/27/2022 06:27:41 pm

Hi Glenn,
Where in NFPA 101 does it say that sprinkler protection is required in a courtyard?

Jesse

1/27/2022 08:23:46 am

The problem is, without canopies / overhangs, there is noting to collect the heat to activate the sprinkler. So if you protected the courtyard with dry horizontal sidewall sprinklers along the perimeter, there's no mechanism to allow them to operate.

SCHULMAN

1/27/2022 08:58:07 am

you should get clarification - what I hear is that sprinklers are required on the inside of the glass (deluge style) to protect the interior from a fire that will start when someone outside smoking starts one .... check for "atrium" references in the code and ask the architect if the wall between the "atrium" and the interior is required to be rated.

Patrick D

1/27/2022 08:59:08 am

I agree with all the comments above.

In my capacity as a free-lance designer with some very loyal clients here in the Northeast, I am often approached by project managers with similar situations.

They say some version of "I am bidding this project or working on a project and 'They' told me I need sprinklers in (insert non-required area)". My client asks if I am aware of a code that would require coverage and usually ask if I can I look into it. Unfortunately, it is much harder to prove a negative then a positive in these situations.

Whoever "They" is in this case as stating these code sections exist, so I typically request that "They" point out the code section in question. If not, you have to somehow review all of NFPA #13 chasing something that in most cases is not there. If they identify what code section they are referring to, maybe they are right and the area needs coverage, or in some cases its a misinterpretation of the code or the drawings.

Reinforcing some of the opinions above, the most likely may be the individual telling you that protection is necessary is interpreting the the courtyard as a skylight.

Good luck to you, and I hope you can clear it up.

Todd Wyatt

1/27/2022 09:06:07 am

The scoping Code would either be the IBC and/or the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, depending on what the jurisdiction has adopted. The adopted Code references other Codes and Standards, including NFPA 13, but only to the "extent to the reference to the standard." IBC 903.3.1.1 states "Where provisions of this code require that a building or portion thereof be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 ..." The IBC determines WHERE sprinklers are requuired (903.2 Where Required) and NFPA 13 identifies HOW sprinklers are to be installed, tested, and maintained. Exempted spaces in NFPA 13 are not applicable unless the IBC (or NFPA 101) includes these exempted spaces.

In this instance, the exterior space surrounded on (4) sides by a building is defined as a "court" (an open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by the exterior building walls or other enclosed devices.") If the AHJ argues that this is an "atrium", point to IBC Ch 2 for the definitition (a vertical space that is closed at the top ...). The IBC does not include sprinkler requirements for exterior spaces except for certain "exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios" of "dwelling units and sleepin units" and in "open-ended corridors and associated exterior stairways". Chances are, the AHJ may be applying these non-applicable conditions to your court.

The AHJ is required per IBC Ch 1 Scope and Administration to enforce the provisions of the Code and to render interpretations IF they are in compliance with the intent and the purpose of the Code but they are not permitted to require additional requirements not per the Code.

Jon Sullivan

1/28/2022 08:31:18 am

I think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had here.

"Exempted spaces in NFPA 13 are not applicable unless the IBC (or NFPA 101) includes these exempted spaces"

In my experience, most AHJs interpret this as IBC 903.2 tells you if sprinklers are required by the occupancy group. Then it must be installed per 903.3.1.1 (NFPA 13) and those exemptions in NFPA 13 can be taken and the building be considered fully sprinklered.

Additionally this is reinforced, in my opinion, by the footnotes of Table 504.3 and Table 504.4 which state "sprinklered throughout .... in accordance with 903.3.1.1" which is the installation standard section.

Curious to here yours and others thoughts.

Jack G

1/27/2022 09:32:47 am

Agree. Protection of windows, structure, path along egress. Have had to do that in a lot of buildings with egress thru a courtyard.

David Branson

1/27/2022 09:33:17 am

As a life-safety measure driven by NFPA 101, not 13, one could provide a dry sidewall head near the entrance and a weatherproof manual pull station nearby to activate it.

Wes

1/27/2022 09:37:53 am

How?

Anthony

1/27/2022 12:17:37 pm

A one head deluge system, that'll be cheep.

Alex

1/27/2022 09:56:52 pm

Your answer wont come from NFPA 13, as stated above. You need to look into the IBC and NFPA 101. Although, here, you wont find a definite answer. If you ask me, the open courtyard does not require protection. Depending on the size, it would require two means of egress but you are well below that.

Also, I would not simply add a head to please a code official. Picking up the phone and discussing the issue not only saves time, but provides a learning experience for both parties. I never overlook the value in a 5-10 minute phone call.

Good luck with the design,
Alex

Jerry

1/28/2022 09:48:19 am

First question out of my mouth would be, "Please show me the code or standard that states that".

Some times, as pointed out by several previous comments, it is someone's faulty memory of a long-ago code that no longer exists or has been modified (we all have those one or two floating around in the noggin). Or more often than not, it's a simple misinterpretation of an existing standard.

Either way, the onus of proof is not on you, its on the person making the assertion that they are required.

Sprinkler Required for Open-Air Courtyard?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES