Sprinklers Req'd for Canopy with Gap at Building?

6/17/2022

Canopies and overhangs have been discussed extensively, including the Meyerfire article and Exterior Projection Cheatsheet.

I know when and how NFPA 13 requires protection, but I am finding architects often provide a "gap" between the face of the building and an exterior canopy. Sometimes this gap is very small.

I have had an AHJ tell me a gap of any size results in no protection required, even if a roof overhang overlaps above.

I'd like to ask the building code experts here if this is a function of if the area beneath is considered part of the Fire Area.

Once again I have a project where it is a wide canopy of combustible construction, would require protection beneath, but it is free-standing, with just a couple inches gap between the canopy and the exterior wall of the building.

Sprinklers required, or not?

Thanks in advance.

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

10 Comments

Pete H

6/17/2022 07:00:10 am

If the AHJ told you they're not required... then in their jurisdiction, they are not required.

I've definitely seen AHJ's agree that once you have a separation between the canopy/pavilion and the building, that would void heat collection between the building and the canopy/pavilion and protection would be pointless and therefore not required... though I also could immediately say that I know some AHJ's who then would say but the overlapping overhang above would require protection again.... but that seems like a grey area up to the AHJ.

And since we're in such a grey area of AHJ discretion.... another important factor that'll probably play into it is "what's under the canopy". If this is literally just a walkway and there's separation between the building and the canopy, I see most AHJ's deciding the dry sprinkler is needlessly expensive for such an unlikely fire hazard (especially as it won't operate due to the lack of heat collection because of the separation). But if it's something like idle wood pallets... then I could see an AHJ viewing that if those caught fire under that canopy that even without trapped heat collection, the heat would be near enough a sprinkler to operate, and the fire potentially volatile enough require sprinkler control to protect building structure/egress. Also the structural material of the canopy could come into play. Steel or wood. Is there a cloth cover? Is the cloth treated with a nonflammable coating or is the cloth covered in lighter fluid (why would you do that?)?

Grey areas are fun.

Alex

6/17/2022 07:28:24 am

Pete is right above, if the AHJ is saying no protection, there is your answer.

I personally would require protection. Especially if there are any combustibles installed beneath the canopy. With 2-3 inches between the canopy and the building, there's no doubt in my mind that a sprinkler wouldn't activate.

Best of luck!
Alex

Jesse

6/17/2022 08:04:51 am

I agree with Alex and Pete. It really is the AHJ that makes the final interpretation.

Todd E Wyatt

6/17/2022 08:31:50 am

Are Fire Sprinklers Required for a Canopy?
https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/are-fire-sprinklers-required-for-a-canopy

2021 IBC
CANOPY. A permanent structure or architectural projection of rigid construction over which a covering is attached that provides weather protection, identity or decoration. A canopy is permitted to be structurally independent or supported by attachment to a building on one or more sides.

Glenn Berger

6/17/2022 08:35:32 am

Make sure that you have the signed documentation from the AHJ in your files. AHJs do change and their interpretation of the code can vary.

Back to your question - If the canopy is strictly a convenience type over a walkway, then most likely most AHJs would not require protection, regardless of construction materials used.

As far as the fire area question, need more information of the type of wall construction and adjacent fire loading before I can give an opinion.

Greg

6/17/2022 08:37:20 am

If we accept the AHJ interpretation of what not to protect, does that decision inform us differently on the protection we know to have.

What if we look at the need for protection from the protected side of view. The sprinklered structure now has an exposure hazard. How is the exposure being dealt with from the sprinkler required side?

Is it acceptable to have a fire outside that can communicate to the exterior of a protected building. Typically we would say No, and there are reasonable methods to protect exposures.

And the AHJ point would seem valid, part of the building is detached and stretching a sprinkler pipe across to an unattached building feature is .... a stretch.

However, can we adjust our perspective and discuss with the AHJ the hazard that remains? Is there a reasonable design that will defend against a communicating fire event. Yes, fill the gap, as it were.... Isn't that what eave and carport protection is about, limiting fire spread to the main occupancy?

That being said, can the designer include a side wall, nitrogen sidewall, or some other reasonable design on the exterior of the protected side and claim 'exposure protection' for the 'required side' that we all dearly want to see survive?

So, who would side with exposure protection in this discussion? Seemingly a well informed owner or architect who is receptive to the need for protection... To prevent an exposure fire from potentially overwhelming an interior system....sneaky little fire, hiding in the eave and roof. It makes for a tough extinguishment.

Hopefully owner and architect agree. The AHJ, likely will agree as well, exposure protection is better than none or no direct protection over the detached. And is it change order worthy, post bid... I think so, as the sprinkler design professional your solving a fire hazard and problem created within the original design proposal.

Wes

6/17/2022 08:42:00 am

Fundamentally, does it make a difference if there is a 2" gap between a Porte Cochere and the building, or none?

What about a 4-inch gap versus a 2-inch gap?

Most of fire growth is by radiation (60-70%), not by conduction and less by convection. The reason wildfires jump roads is not because they have a direct burn path, it's because the radiation is so intense that it ignites combustibles on the other side of the road.

Personally, I think the code justification would be that the Porte Cochere could be considered a separate 'building' if it has the exterior separation requirements (could be 10-ft or 5-ft depending on the construction type and exterior rating). If it's a separate building and is Type U, just for example, then it's not going to require sprinklers.

However, can we really say that a 2-inch gap between an all-wood pore-cochere and a Type V-B building really makes much of a difference to the fire?

On Pete & Jesse's notes - I agree - a healthy discussion with the AHJ on what is intended below the canopy/overhang and the combustibility of materials seems like the best overall approach to arrive at a solution.

I just personally wouldn't take the 'it's detached so we're going non-protected' as an end-all justification, because practically speaking that doesn't make much of a difference to a fire.

Chris

6/17/2022 08:47:56 am

I love Pete's comment "Grey areas are fun". This is the best way to interpret code as a whole.

When I am reviewing code, I always try to understand the logic that was used to develop the code. Fire sprinklers and NFPA 13 are intended to protect the building structure and life. In an exterior canopy, it would be much less of a concern to life than the middle of a building, so the primary purpose of sprinklers would be to protect the building structure.

Code doesn't state a value of property to justify the cost of sprinklers, but that is why small properties do not require them. They add too much cost for a building that wasn't that expensive to build anyways. In this case, the exterior canopy would be a very small fraction of the cost as the primary building, and would be very inexpensive to replace. It does not seem like a justified cost to add a dry system to protect it. The overhang would have some risk of impacting the building next to it however, so there might be justification there for some sort of protection. The logical thing to do in this case would be to add dry sidewalls to the exterior wall, but code does not allow this without fully protecting the canopy. Adding dry sidewalls as a separation would be a relatively low cost, but would provide assurance that the primary building structure is protected.

As mentioned above, the AHJ has the final say no matter what. To the best of my knowledge, code does not require any protection in this type of instance. And unfortunately, compromises don't tend to work with most AHJ's.

Franck

6/17/2022 09:34:41 am

Everything has been said above.
If the AHJ says it is not required, you don't need to provide a protection underneath... until... you have the survey of an insurance loss prevention engineer and if you have combustible storage underneath, he will surely ask to provide sprinkler protection (as I would !).
Note that combustible storage can be waste bins/containers... it does not need to be permanently stored!
In addition, if your canopy construction is combustible (as you indicated), then it may expose the main buildling depending on its own construction and/or presence of openings.

So no need for protection is fine regarding the AHJ point of view. That's the immediate and easy answer.
But when looking on future issues, you may decide to protect it anyway... This is the "grey zone" answer...
So no perfect easy solution for you.

But if you go for no protection, definetely ask a written document from the AHJ.

Dwight H Havens

6/23/2022 09:18:21 am

Wow! Lots of good general approach information, but very little discussion on what the code requires (it depends upon many factors not provided here), and a lot of dumping the decision on the AHJ. You need to know and understand the code requirements before you initiate a discussion with the AHJ. Minimum sprinkler protection requirements generally originate in the building and fire code, but insurance companies may implement additional requirements based on specific needs.

Also, no discussion on who the AHJ is, which is a very important question to be answered before the question is asked.

The purpose for making determinations such as these (whether or not sprinklers are required) is to protect yourself and your business from liability, and paying for unplanned design changes later in the project when they are much more expensive. So listen to the advice given in this discussion, then dot you i's and cross your t's in developing your design. You should always go through the design engineer or architect of record with any questions, and if the design doesn't seem to meet the intent of the code, it is appropriate to engage the AHJ(s). And always document, document, document.

Sprinklers Req'd for Canopy with Gap at Building?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES