10/3/2015 Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/76233­198225994 1/5

National Fire Protection Association 103.159 de membri Aderați

Discuții Promoții Joburi Despre LinkedIn Căutați

Informații Feedback

Despre acest grup

Creat: 24 martie 2008Tip: Grup de profesioniștiSite web: http://www.nfpa.org

LinkedIn Corp. © 2015

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.

Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA)Hi, EveryoneHow you sugest to protect (or not protect) Atrium ­ vertical floor openings that connect 6 floors isabout 30m from flor to glass roof. I've some opinion that sprinklers aren't necessary at those atriumroof level.Where in NFPA 13 (chapter) can find requirements for that situation? 21 decembrie 2012

Vizualizați comentariile precedente

James WaiteFound 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 LemkeThe fun with taking the exception to not install sprinklers over the performance and seatingareas 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 WaitePaul, I've heard that statement before and find it to be logically inconsistent. When the codeoffers an exception, compliance with the exception is full compliance with the code. In this casethe code has acknowledged that the installation of sprinklers is pointless, due to theirineffectiveness when installed at heights above 50 feet.

So, even installation of the sprinklers at these heights, does not provide required coverage. andin 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 itwere 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, bycompliance with the offered exceptions.

Additionally, multiple atria or other vertical openings would be allowed, as long as they areproperly separated and protected individually, within the building. 26 decembrie 2012

Jim LathropNot only is it inconsistent it is illogical. For example, NFPA 13 provides exceptions fornumerous areas of a building to be exempt from sprinkler coverage, does that mean that thebuilding 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 notmean that the building is not sprinklered for the purposes of that code. It reminds me of anenforcer many years ago that prohibited sprinklers in hospital ORs and then said that thebuilding was not fully sprinklered and could not use the sprinkler exceptions. NFPA 101 actuallyhas a provision in Chapters 18 & 19 to counter that because of this one official. Amazing howoften that codes and standards are revised to compensate for improper enforcement.26 decembrie 2012

Paul Lemke1. 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 portionof the building is not protected by an AWS the building is not protected throughout. Since ­ 8.6.7requires that a building must be protected throughout by an AWS to have atria, there cannot beany atria in the building other than the performance and seating areas. From what I understand

Confidențialitate și termeni

Ce este LinkedIn? Înscrieți­vă astăzi Intrați în cont

10/3/2015 Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/76233­198225994 2/5

this is all about risk. If you are exposing the occupants to hazards without mitigation (i.e., theAWS) in the performance and seating areas, the risk of exposing the occupants to the hazardassociated with an atrium fire (smoke along the egress paths, etc.) is unacceptable.

Also note that per 101 ­ 12.3.5 omitting an AWS from the performance and seating areas of anassembly 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 combustibilitythat no self­propagating fire therein can occur." Ergo, if the owner wishes to ever have seatsthat contain combustible materials (cloth, foam, plastic); paper or cloth signs or banners; stagesets that contain wood, paper, or untreated fabrics; confetti; or pyrotechnics then they musthave an AWS over the performance and seating areas even if the ceiling is greater than 50 feetup. 26 decembrie 2012

Paul LemkeJim L. – Technically when you use the NFPA 13 exceptions the building is _not_ protectedthroughout. 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 theterm "protected throughout" but does not define the term; therefore, we must consult otherdocuments (that is, dictionaries) for the common definition. The 2009 American HeritageDictionary 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 theAWS. The reality is that most AHJs accept that the building is protected throughout whenNFPA 13 is followed (including not installing sprinklers in the excepted spaces) but unless theAHJ puts that interpretation in writing the FP EOR is in the cross hairs for not includingsprinklers in all spaces. However, as NFPA 13 is an installation standard and not a designstandard, how it defines what constitutes an acceptable Level of Protection is irrelevant toparsing out what NFPA 101 specifies as the minimum Extinguishing Requirements and what arespaces 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’sperformance and seating areas _do not_ meet NFPA 101's definition of an atrium (they do notconnect more than one legal floor, etc.) AND if the owner elects to not sprinkle the performanceand 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 theperformance and seating areas _do_ NFPA 101’s definition of an atrium THEN it must beprotected by an AWS per 8.6.7 despite the exception in 12.3.5.3 (3) AND other atria arepermitted (provided they meet the fire protection requirements of 8.6.7). 26 decembrie 2012

Shaikh RafiqAs 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 JacobsonThe use of fast optical detectors (that detect the fire while it's small preferably at it's ignitionpoint ) coupled with automatic sprinklers and smoke detection in such large areas, may be thebest solution. The alarm issued by the fast response optical detectors can alert the firstresponders and fire brigade in time to address areas that are not covered by sprinklers .27 decembrie 2012

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

Ron Fletcher SETPaul,

Let me start by stating that I have only referenced NFPA 101 a few times as it is not arequirement in most jurisdictions we work in so please forgive my ignorance. I have been toldthat the NFPA standards are organized so that a general rule, in this case 8.6.7 is supersededby a specific exception i.e. 12.3.5.3(3)?

Just as an observation, it would seem that your interpretation would require even retractableroof stadiums (we have two in Phoenix) to be fully sprinklered at the roof because of their otheruses such as RV shows or boat shows. This is just an observation, like I said I am not familiarwith the intricacies of NFPA 101. 27 decembrie 2012

10/3/2015 Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/76233­198225994 3/5

Paul LemkeRon F. – You are correct that whether or not a particular _type of occupancy_ needs a firesuppression 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 onejumps back to Chapter 9.7 and 9.6 respectively for the design element requirements. Sub­sections 9.6 and 9.7 are written in scope limited language, for example, ­ 9.7.1.1 states, “Eachautomatic sprinkler system required by another section of this Code shall…” This language iswhat keeps us from having to put an AWS in every type of occupancy while maintainingcommon requirements for all required AWS’s. But keep in mind, types of occupancies are notthe 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 anAWS.

The building fire protection features requirements are specified in Chapter 8. Unfortunately, theprovisions of Chapter 8 Features of Fire Protection are a bit more confusing than therequirements of the occupancy chapters. 2003 NFPA 101 – 8.1.1 specifies that all requirementsof Chapter 8 are applicable to all new and existing buildings; however, this umbrella statementis modified in the chapter’s sub­sections. Some of the sub­sections are completely dependentupon the occupancy chapters to determine if the sub­section is applicable in its entirety (forexample, ­8.2 Construction and Compartmentation, – 8.4 Smoke Partitions, and ­ 8.5 SmokeBarriers). Some sub­sections are dependent upon other Chapter 8 sub­sections to be invoked(for example, ­ 8.1.2 Automatic Sprinkler Systems). Other sub­sections include requirements forall occupancies but the selection of the specifics of the fire protection feature are in theoccupancy chapters (for example, ­ 8.3 specifies characteristics of all Fire Barriers but themeans for determining the appropriate fire barrier ratings are in the occupancy chapters).Finally, some sub­sections are applicable to all buildings regardless of the occupancy type (forexample, ­ 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) onlyallows a building to have an atrium in it if the building is protected throughout by an AWSdesigned in accordance with ­ 9.7.

Also, lest we forget, Chapter 11 addresses Special Structures and High­Rise Buildings. Whilethe requirements for piers, underground buildings, membrane structures, et cetera are applicableregardless of the type of occupancy, sub­section 11.8 High­Rise Buildings is only applicable ifinvoked by one of the occupancy chapters. If a building meets the NFPA 101 definition of ahigh­rise building (> 75 feet in height from lowest fire vehicle access to the floor of the highestoccupiable story) and an occupancy chapter refers back to 11.8 then an AWS and Class Istandpipe is required. This is regardless of whether or not the type of occupancy normallyrequires an AWS or standpipe. For example, New Business Occupancies normally only requirefire extinguishers and not an AWS; however, ­ 38.3.2 specifies that high­rise New BusinessOccupancies shall comply with – 11.8 which means they need an AWS and a Class Istandpipe. (continued) 27 decembrie 2012

Paul Lemke(continued) So to get to your specific question, per NFPA 101, yes, a stadium with a retractable roof wouldrequire sprinklers on the retractable roof sections IF the performance area (the playing field)qualifies as an atrium (a multi­deck stadium probably does unless the upper decks qualify aslegal mezzanines); OR IF the building includes an atrium elsewhere in the structure (the rampsto the upper decks probably form an atrium); OR IF the building height to the floor of the toplevel plus the height from the building base to the lowest level of the fire fighting vehicle accessis greater than 75 feet; OR IF the structure is a Mixed Occupancy that includes a type ofoccupancy that requires an AWS (for example, the aggregate of the mercantile spaces (giftshops) exceed 12,000 square feet). That being said, due to the technical issues associated withsprinkling a retractable roof if I was the FP EOR I would work with the AHJ to prepare anacceptable performance based design rather than a prescriptive design. I would also do this if Ihad to deal with the potential “concealed combustible space” issues associated with aretractable field like at the University of Phoenix’ stadium. 27 decembrie 2012

James WaiteAny basic education in the application of NFPA 101 (a CODE, not a STANDARD, such as 13,72, etc) teaches that the Occupancy Chapters (12­43) determine the basic requirements byreferencing or modifying by addition or exception, the requirements of the base chapters (1­11),and that since it is a CODE, overrules any requirement of a STANDARD it references, also byadding or excepting specific requirements of that standard.

The application of 101:12.3.5 says, at its base level; you must sprinkler and supervise thebuilding throughout, EXCEPT; you may omit sprinklers at ceilings over 50' above floors andseating area under specific conditions.

It is plain that the intent of the code is to allow the exceptions without changing the status ofthe building as 'sprinklered throughout', for the limited conditions specified. Otherwise use of theexception would create non­compliance. No specific statement to that result is not necessary.

As far as 'MIXED' occupancies, as I noted above, if they are SEPARATED appropriately, they

10/3/2015 Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/76233­198225994 4/5

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 anotherdiscussion, but throwing in conflicting conditions, that do not apply to the question at hand, iscreates obfuscation, and unnecessary complexity to a straight forward question. In this case, ifthe building is not a high­rise, why add the high­rise requirements, or any other, to the mix?28 decembrie 2012

Suneeb Riaz BSc (ME), CFPS(NFPA)I might be diverting from the subject but as we use the term "building fully protected /sprinkleredthroughout by supervised automatic sprinkler system.Does it mandate us to provide sprinkler tothe areas which are already protected by other secondary systems as gas suppression orothers ? 29 decembrie 2012

Rakesh BhatHello all ,interesting discussion. How about using drencher nozzles at ceiling heights greaterthan 15 meters since fusible bulb sprinklers may not be effective at that height?

Regards, 30 decembrie 2012

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

Andrzej ZalewskiYes in middle europa Poland, Germany I meet requirement fast response and higher density butadditionaly separation by sprinklers located around the openings spaced max 2m. But ­ atrium spronkler protection means protection of flor with shops example or space belowelewators 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 detectors­

4 Protection below wlevators, starcases, and obstructions located at the lowest level.2 ianuarie 2013

William KoffelAndrzej, I would have to disagree with your first two points. Regarding the first, there is no setheight at which sprinklers should be permitted to be omitted. As stated above, you will not finda maximum height of the roof stated in NFPA 13 and while it was previously included in NFPA101, it has subsequently be deleted for lack of technical substantiation. Are there instances inwhich sprinklers at some height may no longer be effective? Yes, but it depends on thesituation and therefore the sprinklers should only be omitted upon completion of an engineeringanalysis in accordance with the equivalency or alternative method provisions contained in mostcodes and standards. As stated above, the analysis may also indicate the need for somealternative protection scheme (water cannons as has been used for some large, enclosedstadia).

Regarding your second point, NFPA 13 specifically states that such closely spaced sprinklersare not required for large volume spaces such as atria. Where required, the provision for closelyspaced sprinklers is based upon a method of trying to prevent vertical smoke migration insmaller vertical openings such as escalator openings. With the smoke management systemprovided in most atria, most likely you want the smoke to flow into the atria. Yes, such closelyspaced sprinklers, if actuated, might help contain smoke within the volume of the atrium if thefire is in the atrium but the smoke management system should already be designed to keep thesmoke 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 technicallywrong. 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 requiredby NFPA 13. 2 ianuarie 2013

Travis Allen, P.E.As many of us will be applying the IBC provisions, it is helpful to note that the ICC clarified"equipped throughout" in a referenced section 506.3 (area increase due to sprinkler system) intwo ways:

1. the code language of 506.3 includes"in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1" which is thesprinkler scoping language of the Code, and2. commentary which adds "This section permits an increase of the allowable building areasestablished in Table 503 for each type of construction if the building in question is equipped

10/3/2015 Sprinklers in Atrium (NFPA) | LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/76233­198225994 5/5

throughout with an automatic sprinkler system... The scope of the phrase “protected throughoutwith an automatic sprinkler system” means that the entire structure is to be provided withsprinkler protection designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13, as stipulated in Section903.3.1.1. It is intended that only buildings protected throughout the entire structure with asystem designed in accordance with NFPA 13 be eligible for the sprinkler increase permitted bythis section, except as specifically modified by the exceptions in Section 903.3.1.1.1. Thoseexceptions permit the omission of sprinklers in certain locations within buildings because ofconditions 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 anegligible impact on the fire load of the building or it is likely that other requirements will abatethe 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 BradshawSaneeb. You mention othe secondary protection...secondary to what if sprinklers are notprovided?

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. Thisis not to say that the AHJ cannot view it as an alternative but that decision should not be madelightly. The International Fire Code addresses the use of Alternative Automatic Fire­Extinguishing Systems in section 904.

* Where required. Automatic fìre­extinguishing systems installed as an alternative to therequired automatic sprinkler systems of Section 903 shall be approvedby the fire code official.Automatic fire­extinguishing systems shall not be considered alternatives for the purposes ofexceptions or reductions allowed by other requirements of this code.

As you can see in this section, if you allow the alternative suppression system, then no otherallowances are permitted to be taken. It can thus be infered (my opinion) that the building is nolonger considered fully sprinklered. Most designers intend to take full advantage of allalowances for fully sprinklering a building when it is designed.

Due to the lack of maintenance of not only the alternative suppression systems but also theroom/space, I would be very reluctant to allow an alternative suppression system to replace arequired sprinkler system in a certain room/space. Addtitionally, most alternative suppressionsystems have a finite amount of extinguishing agent unlike the sprinkler system.

My thoughts.... 3 ianuarie 2013