Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) _ LinkedIn

10/3/2015

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn Ce este Lin Linked kedIn? In?

National Fire Protection Association Discuții



Proomo Pr moți țiii

Jobburi Jo

Desp sprre Lin inke keddIn

Înscrieți Înscr ieți-vă -vă astă astăzi zi

103.159 de membri

Aderați

Intrați Intr ați în con contt





Căuta tați ți

Aveți ceva de spus? Aderați gratuit la LinkedIn pentru a participa la discuții. După ce aderați, puteți adăuga comentarii și vă puteți publica propriile discuții.

Pawel Koterba Sprinkler engineer at TB Poland Sp z o.o.

Despre acest grup Creat: 24 martie 2008

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA)

Tip: Grup de profesioniști

Hi, Ev Ever er yone yone How you sugest to protect (or not protect) Atrium - vertical floor openings that connect 6 floors is about 30m from flor to glass roof. I've some opinion that sprinklers aren't necessary at those atrium roof leve level.l. Where in NFPA 13 (chapter) can find requirements for that situation? 21 decembrie 2012

Site web: http://www.nfpa.org

Informa Info rmații ții

Feed Fe edba back ck

Confidențialitate și termeni

LinkedIn Corp. © 2015

Vizualizați comentariile precedente James Waite

Found the passages I was looking for at 101:12.3.5.3. (3)(a) & (b). The application might be up for discussion....

25 decembrie 2012

Paul Lemke Lemke

The fun with taking the exception to not install sprinklers over the performance and seating areas of a statia or arena is that means the building is not protected throughout by an AWS; therefore, one cannot have any other atria elsewere in the building per -8.6.7. 26 decembrie 2012 James Waite

Paul, I've heard that statement before and find it to be logically inconsistent. When the code offers an exception, compliance with the exception is full com pliance with the code. In t his case the code the code has acknowledged that the installation of spri nklers is pointless, pointless, due to t o their ineffectiveness ine ffectiveness when installed at heights above 50 feet . So, even installation of the sprinklers at these heights, does not provide required coverage. and in the strict sense does not provided a building sprinkled through out, as you suggest. Regardless, it does provide compliance with the intent of the code, and is considered as if it were sprinkled throughout, due to the compliance with the provided exception. The recognition by the code of this conditions, allows the omission of the unnecessary cost, labor, and provides by way of equivalent coverage and full compliance with the code, by compliance with the offered exceptions. Additionally, mult iple atria or other v ertical openings would be allowed, allowed, as long as they t hey are properly prop erly s epar eparated ated and protected individually, within the building building.. 26 decembrie 2012 Jim Lathrop

Not only is it inconsistent it is illogical. For example, NFPA 13 provides exceptions for numerous areas of a building to be exempt from sprinkler coverage, does that mean that the building is not fully sprinklered? Of course it doesn’t mean that. If the code (regardless of IBC, IFC, NFPA 101, NFPA 1, etc.) exempts a specific area from having sprinklers, it does not mean that the building is not sprinklered for the purposes of that code. It reminds me of an enforcer many years ago that prohibited sprinklers in hospital ORs and then said that the building was not fully sprinklered and could not use the sprinkler exceptions. NFPA 101 actually has a provision in Chapters 18 & 19 to counter that because of this one official. Amazing how often that codes and standards are revised to compensate for improper enforcement. 26 decembrie 2012 Paul Lemke

1. NFPA 101 - 12.3.5 does not state anywere that an assembly occupancy shall be considered "protected throughout" when the - 12.3.5.3 exception it taken; therefore, as a very large portion of the building is not protected by an AWS the building is not protected throughout. Since - 8.6.7 requires that a building must be protected throughout by an AWS to have atria, there cannot be any atria in the building other than the performance and seating areas. From what I understand

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/76233-198225994

1/5

10/3/2015

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn this is all about risk. If you are exposing the occupants to hazards without mitigation (i.e., the AWS) in t he performance and seating areas, the risk of exposing the occupants to the hazard associated with an atrium fire (smoke along the egress paths, etc.) is unacceptable. Also note that per 101 - 12.3.5 omitting an A WS from the performance and seating areas of an assembly occupancy is only acceptable if the "...use is restricted to low fire hazard uses." 101 6.2.2 defines low hazard occupancies as those with contents with "...such low combustibility that no self-propagating fire therein can occur." Ergo, if the owner wishes to ever have seats that contain combustible materials (cloth, foam, plastic); paper or cloth signs or banners; stage sets that contain wood, paper, or untreated fabrics; confetti; or pyrotechnics then they must have an AWS over the performance and seating areas even if the ceiling is greater than 50 feet up. 26 decembrie 2012 Paul Lemke

Jim L. – Technically when you use the NFPA 13 exceptions the building is _not_ protected throughout. It may be "fully sprinklered" as it complies with the AWS Installation Standard (NFPA 13) but that does not mean the building is "protected throughout". NFPA 101 uses the term "protected throughout" but does not define the term; therefore, we must consult other documents (that is, dictionaries) for the common definition. The 2009 American Heritage Dictionary defines “throughout” as “In or through all parts; everywhere”. Therefore, by definition, to be protected by an AWS throughout, _every_ part of a building must be protected by the AWS. The reality is that most AHJs accept that the building is protected t hroughout when NFPA 13 is followed (including not installing sprinklers in the excepted spaces) but unless the AHJ puts that interpretation in writing the FP EOR is in the c ross hairs for not including sprinklers in all spaces. However, as NFPA 13 is an installation standard and not a design standard, how it defines what constitutes an acceptable Level of Protection is irrelevant to parsing out what NFPA 101 specifies as the minimum Extinguishing Requirements and what are spaces are permitted in a building. NFPA 101 – 8.6.7 specifically states that unless a building is protected throughout (that is, protected everywhere) by an AWS it cannot contain any atria. IF a stadia and arena’s performance and seating areas _do not_ meet NFPA 101's definition of an atrium (they do not connect more than one legal floor, etc.) AND if the owner elects to not sprinkle the performance and seating areas, THEN NFPA 101 – 8.6.7 states there cannot be any atrium in the building. (The performance and seating areas are not impacted as they are not an atrium.) IF the performance and seating areas _do_ NFPA 101’s definition of an atrium THEN it must be protected by an AWS per 8.6.7 despite the exception in 12.3.5.3 (3) AND other atria are permitted (provided they meet the fire protection requirements of 8.6.7). 26 decembrie 2012 Shaikh Rafiq

As per NFPA 13 - Chapter 8.14.4.4 Large Openings. Closely spaced sprinklers and draft stops are not required around large openings such as those found in shopping malls, atrium buildings, and similar structures where all adjoining levels and spaces are protected by automatic sprinklers in accordance with this standard and where the openings have all vertical & horizontal dimensions between opposite edges of 20 ft (6 m) or greater and an area of 1000 ft' (93 m') or greater. 27 decembrie 2012 Esther Jacobson

The use of fast optical detectors (that detect the fire while it's small preferably at it's ignition point ) coupled with automatic sprinklers and smoke detection in such large areas, may be the best solution. The alarm issued by the fast response optical detectors can alert the first responders and fire brigade in time to address areas that are not covered by sprinklers . 27 decembrie 2012 Jesse Denton

You will need to consider the combustible loading int he atrium also. You can generally have all the foliage, concrete, steel, etc., you want in an area but you will need to be careful with upholstered furniture, wood furniture, carpet, etc. I do not remember the number of BTU's per sq. ft. off the top of my head and do not have a copy of the codes readily available. 27 decembrie 2012 Ron Fletcher SET

Paul, Let me start by stating that I have only referenced NFPA 101 a few times as it is not a requirement in most jurisdictions we work in so please forgive my ignorance. I have been told that the NFPA standards are organized so that a general rule, in this case 8.6.7 is superseded by a specific exception i.e. 12.3.5.3(3)? Just as an observation, it would seem that your interpretation would require even retractable roof stadiums (we have two in Phoenix) to be fully sprinklered at the roof because of their other uses such as RV shows or boat shows. This is just an observation, like I said I am not familiar with the intricacies of NFPA 101. 27 decembrie 2012


2/5

10/3/2015

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn Paul Lemke

Ron F. – You are correct that whether or not a particular _type of occupancy_ needs a fire suppression or fire alarm system is called out in the occupancy chapters (Chapters 12 – 42). (BTW, all references are to NFPA 101, 2003 edition as that is what I have on my desk today.) When one of the occupancy chapters requires a fire suppression or fire alarm system one jumps back to Chapter 9.7 and 9.6 respectiv ely f or the design element requirements. Subsections 9.6 and 9.7 are written in scope limited language, for example, - 9.7.1.1 states, “Each automatic sprinkler system required by another section of this Code shall…” This language is what keeps us from having to put an AWS in every type of occupancy while maintaining common requirements for all required AWS’s. But keep in mind, types of occupancies are not the only driver for application of requirements in the LSC – building features, such as an atrium, might drive out having to partially or fully sprinkle a building that normally would not have an AWS. The building fire protection features requirements are specified in Chapter 8. Unfortunately, the provisions of Chapter 8 Features of Fire Protection are a bit more confusing than the requirements of the occupancy chapters. 2003 NFPA 101 – 8.1.1 specifies that all requirements of Chapter 8 are applicable to all new and existing buildings; however, this umbrella statement is modified in the chapter’s sub-sections. Some of the sub-sections are completely dependent upon the occupancy chapters to determine if the sub-section is applicable in its entirety (for example, -8.2 Construction and Compartmentation, – 8.4 Smoke Partitions, and - 8.5 Smoke Barriers). Some sub-sections are dependent upon other Chapter 8 sub-sections to be invoked (for example, - 8.1.2 Automatic Sprinkler Systems). Other sub-sections include requirements for all occupancies but the selection of the specifics of the fire protection feature are in the occupancy chapters (for example, - 8.3 specifies characteristics of all Fire Barriers but the means for determining the appropriate fire barrier ratings are in the occupancy chapters). Finally, some sub-sections are applicable to all buildings regardless of the occupancy type (for example, - 8.6 Vertical Openings). The nuance with Atriums is that the requirements of subsection 8.6.7 are applicable to all buildings regardless of occupancy type and – 8.6.7 (4) only allows a building to have an atrium in it if the building is protected throughout by an AWS designed in accordance with - 9.7. Also, lest we forget, Chapter 11 addresses Special Structures and High-Rise Buildings. While the requirements for piers, underground buildings, membrane structures, et cetera are applicable regardless of the type of occupancy, sub-section 11.8 High-Rise Buildings is only applicable if invoked by one of the occupancy chapters. If a building meets the NFPA 101 definition of a high-rise building (> 75 feet in height from lowest fire vehicle access to the floor of the highest occupiable story) and an occupancy chapter refers back to 11.8 then an AWS and Class I standpipe is required. This is regardless of whether or not the type of occupancy normally requires an AWS or standpipe. For example, New Business Occupancies normally only require fire extinguishers and not an AWS; however, - 38.3.2 specifies that high-rise New Business Occupancies shall comply with – 11.8 which means they need an AWS and a Class I standpipe. (continued) 27 decembrie 2012 Paul Lemke

(continued) So to get to your specific question, per NFPA 101, yes, a stadium with a retractable roof would require sprinklers on the retractable roof sections IF the performance area (the playing field) qualifies as an atrium (a multi-deck stadium probably does unless the upper decks qualify as legal mezzanines); OR IF the building includes an atrium elsewhere in the structure (the ramps to the upper decks probably form an atrium); OR IF the building height to the floor of the top level plus the height from the building base to the lowest level of the fire fighting vehicle access is greater than 75 feet; OR IF the structure is a Mixed Occupancy that includes a type of occupancy that requires an AWS (for example, the aggregate of the mercantile spaces (gift shops) exceed 12,000 square feet). That being said, due to the technical issues associated with sprinkling a retractable roof if I was the FP EOR I would work with the AHJ to prepare an acceptable performance based design rather than a prescriptive design. I would also do this if I had to deal with the potential “concealed combustible space” issues associated with a retractable field like at the University of Phoenix’ stadium. 27 decembrie 2012 James Waite

Any basic education in the application of NFPA 101 (a CODE, not a STANDARD, such as 13, 72, etc) teaches that the Occupancy Chapters (12-43) determine the basic requirements by referencing or modifying by addition or exception, the requirements of the base chapters (1-11), and that since it is a CODE, overrules any requirement of a STANDARD it references, also by adding or excepting specific requirements of that standard. The application of 101:12.3.5 says, at its base level; you must sprinkler and supervise the building throughout, EXCEPT; you may omit sprinklers at ceilings over 50' above floors and seating area under specific conditions. It is plain that the intent of the code is to allow the exceptions without changing the status of the building as 'sprinklered throughout', for the limited conditions specified. Otherwise use of the exception would create non-compliance. No specific statement to that result is not necessary. As far as 'MIXED' occupancies, as I noted above, if they are SEPARATED appropriately, t hey


3/5

10/3/2015

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn do not affect the assembly space where sprinklers are allowed to be omitted. Details for other occupancies, may have other conditions that need to be considered in another discussion, but throwing in conflicting conditions, that do not apply to the question at hand, is creates obfuscation, and unnecessary complexity to a straight forward question. In this case, if the building is not a high-rise, why add the high-rise requirements, or any other,28todecembrie the mix? 2012 Suneeb Riaz BSc (ME), CFPS(NFPA)

I might be diverting from the subject but as we use the term "building fully protected /sprinklered throughout by supervised automatic sprinkler system.Does it mandate us to provide sprinkler to the areas which are already protected by other secondary systems as gas suppression or others ? 29 decembrie 2012 Rakesh Bhat

Hello all ,interesting discussion. How about using drencher nozzles at ceiling heights greater than 15 meters since fusible bulb sprinklers may not be effective at that height? Regards,

30 decembrie 2012

John Vergara

This is a similar question to one I posed some time ago - are sprinklers effective in areas with high ceilings ie 20m. It is my understanding that Codes, in most countries, deal with this issue by requiring sprinklers to be fast response, higher density, higher pressure, closer spacing etc. 1 ianuarie 2013 Andrzej Zalewski

Yes in middle europa Poland, Germany I meet requirement fast response and higher density but additionaly separation by sprinklers located around the openings spaced max 2m. But - atrium spronkler protection means protection of flor with shops example or space below elewators or staircases - they have possibility to use sprinklers fixed to construction. Collecting ideas discusion to protect atrium propose 1. No sprinkless on the top of atrium if its grather than 15m 1. Sprinklers around the openings spaced max 2m (2ft) on each flor 1. Horizontal nozzels around first flors opening actuated by linear optical detectors4 Protection below wlevators, starcases, and obstructions located at the lowest level. 2 ianuarie 2013 William Koffel

Andrzej, I would have t o disagree with your fi rst two points. Regarding the first, there is no set height at which sprinklers should be permitted to be omitted. As stated above, you will not find a maximum height of the roof stated in NFPA 13 and while it was previously included in NFPA 101, it has subsequently be deleted for lack of technical substantiation. Are there instances in which sprinklers at some height may no longer be effective? Yes, but it depends on the situation and therefore the sprinklers should only be omitted upon completion of an engineering analysis in accordance with the equivalency or alternative method provisions contained in most codes and standards. As stated above, the analysis may also indicate the need for some alternative protection scheme (water cannons as has been used for some large, enclosed stadia). Regarding your second point, NFPA 13 specifically states that such closely spaced sprinklers are not required for large volume spaces such as atria. Where required, the provision for closely spaced sprinklers is based upon a method of trying to prevent vertical smoke migration in smaller vertical openings such as escalator openings. With the smoke management system provided in most atria, most likely you want the smoke to flow into the atria. Yes, such closely spaced sprinklers, if actuated, might help contain smoke within the volume of the atrium if the fire is in the atrium but the smoke management system should already be designed to keep the smoke from spreading to adjacent areas open to the atrium. While I am not necessarily a fan of your third point, I won't say that it might be technically wrong. However, it may not be a desirable protection strategy from the owner's perspective. With respect to your fourth point, I would concur to the extent that such sprinklers are required by NFPA 13. 2 ianuarie 2013 Travis Allen, P.E.

As many of us will be applying the IBC provisions, it is helpful to note t hat the ICC clarified "equipped throughout" in a referenced section 506.3 (area increase due to sprinkler system) in two ways: 1. the code language of 506.3 includes"in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1" which is the sprinkler scoping language of the Code, and 2. commentary which adds "This section permits an increase of the allowable building areas established in Table 503 for each type of construction if the building in question is equipped


4/5

10/3/2015

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn throughout with an automatic sprinkler system... The scope of the phrase “protected throughout with an automatic sprinkler system” means that the entire structure is to be provided with sprinkler protection designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13, as stipulated in Section 903.3.1.1. It is intended that only buildings protected throughout the entire structure with a system designed in accordance with NFPA 13 be eligible for the sprinkler increase permitted by this section, except as specifically modified by the exceptions in Section 903.3.1.1.1. Those exceptions permit the omission of sprinklers in certain locations within buildings because of conditions that exist in those locations. Even if an exception is utilized in the sprinkler design, the building is still eligible for the area increase because the exempted locations either have a negligible impact on the fire load of the building or it is likely that other requirements will abate the hazard associated with these rooms." This helps to clarify how the IBC is to be applied with reguards to "equipped throughout". 2 ianuarie 2013 Patrick Bradshaw

Saneeb. You mention othe secondary protection...secondary to what if sprinklers are not provided? To answer your question, if the room/space is required to be provided with sprinkler protection, then sprinklers are required even if a clean agent or other suppression system is present. This is not to say that the AHJ cannot view it as an alternative but that decision should not be made lightly. The International Fire Code addresses the use of Alternative Automatic FireExtinguishing Systems in section 904. * Where required. Automatic fìre-extinguishing systems installed as an alternative to the required automatic sprinkler systems of Section 903 shall be approvedby the fire code official. Automatic fire-extinguishing sys tems shall not be considered alternatives for the purposes of exceptions or reductions allowed by other requirements of this code. As you can see in this section, if you allow the alternative suppression sys tem, t hen no other allowances are permitted to be taken. It can thus be infered (my opinion) that the building is no longer considered fully sprinklered. Most designers intend to take full advantage of all alowances for fully sprinklering a building when it is designed. Due to the lack of maintenance of not only the alternative suppression systems but also the room/space, I would be very reluctant to allow an alternative suppression system to replace a required sprinkler system in a certain room/space. Addtitionally, most alternative suppression systems have a finite amount of extinguishing agent unlike the sprinkler system. My thoughts....


3 ianuarie 2013

5/5

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) _ LinkedIn

Recommend Documents