Voluntary Partial-Sprinkler System Allowed?

9/2/2020

A building owner has an existing mixed-use building which has approximately 6,000 sqft of storage space (S-1 Occupancy) and offices (larger than 6,000 sqft). The offices and storage appear to have a rated separation (steel studs, 2x gypsum on at least one side of the wall) in-between them.

The owner is looking to store new product in the warehouse, but would like for it to be sprinkler protected. This building, if new, would be under the 2015 International Building Code.

As the building currently stands, it is a code-compliant mixed-use separated, non-sprinklered occupancy.

Can the owner voluntarily provide a sprinkler system above code, but only for the warehouse portion?

If so, does anything with the fire barrier between the warehouse and office need to change?

As this is only a voluntary improvement to the property and life safety systems, I could see it being an alternative design method and seek approval from the AHJ under IBC Section 104.11 as a partially-protected building - I just wasn't sure if it even needed to come to that. Would be interested in other opinions, thank you in advance!

Submitted anonymously and posted for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

9 Comments

Dan Wilder

9/2/2020 08:34:47 am

I rarely go into the Building & Fire Code at this level, but doesn't IBC 901.2 Exception give allowance for this?

Exception: Any fire protection system or portion thereof not required by this code shall be permitted to be installed for partial or complete protection provided that such system meets the requirements of this code.

This is also pending any local modifications to the IBC/IFC.

WES

9/2/2020 03:21:59 pm

Well said!

Never ran across this before and didn't realize it was spelled out this smoothly.

Austin

9/2/2020 10:10:35 am

Check out 901.4.2 of the 15 IFC as well. It allows for partial coverage of a fire protection system over the intent of the code. If installed though, it must meet all requirements of IFC, IBC, and NFPA.

sean

9/2/2020 11:13:11 am

you would not get any credit for a fully sprinklered building per the IBC.

Jonathan Sullivan

9/3/2020 10:04:46 am

This is a really important point that is often missed. Thanks for pointing this out.

9/3/2020 10:13:00 am

Although two important caveats to add:

1) The building area tables of IBC Ch. 5 note 'buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 903.3.1.1 [NFPA 13]. The exceptions for omitting sprinklers under 903.3.1.1 and NFPA 13 can be taken when the area bonus is applied.

2) Fire extinguishing systems such as inert gas systems, are not considered an acceptable substitute for an automatic sprinkler system per 904.2.1.

9/21/2020 02:42:17 pm

agreed.

the exceptions from 903.3.1.1 & NFPA 13 is more in line to non-combustible spaces, the general exeptions in NFPA 13 8.1

While a partial system would not conform with 8.1

Mike

9/2/2020 12:47:16 pm

I wonder what the insurance company would say.

9/2/2020 01:32:17 pm

I am not a IFC or IBC expert.

How do they affect NFPA 13 when it states:

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.

Voluntary Partial-Sprinkler System Allowed?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES