Building Classification - Fire Sprinkler Systems, Part 2
by Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA

When the IBC was being developed, there was a mild uproar about the number of sprinkler trade-offs that the code included, and it still continues to this day. The uproar comes from many directions: firestop contractors and material suppliers, concrete manufacturing organizations, fire marshal associations, door hardware manufacturers, wall and ceiling contractors, and several other groups and individuals. Most of these opponents are looking for an approach to fire safety that uses a balance of active and passive fire protection measures, rather than relying heavily on sprinkler systems, which some argue has a history of unreliability. This might appear to be a concern based on the number of recent recalls on popular sprinkler heads, but a rep ort by the NFPA released in August 2005, states that “sprinklers failed to operate in 7% of structure fires” between the period of 1999 through 20021; to turn that around, sprinklers were 93% effective—a reasonable performance. Although it isn’t the intent of this article to get into the sprinkler trade-off debate, it could be expected that, over time, a balance between passive and active fire protection will work its way into the building code to some degree; probably not to the satisfaction of those listed above, but presumably enough to temper the debate somewhat.

Any article on sprinkler systems in building codes wouldn’t be complete without a discussion on the word “throughout.” The IBC uses this word in conjunction with many sprinkler requirements, such as that for area and height increases. In Section 506.3, it states “Where a building is protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 [NFPA 13], the area limitation in Table 503 is permitted to be increased…” When the code uses that “throughout,” it literally means it. However, like most aspects of a building code, there are exceptions.

Since the building code requires systems to be installed in accordance with NFPA 13 (or one of the other two codes, if permitted), then if the standard allows omission of sprinklers from a certain area, it is still considered sprinklered “throughout.” Additionally, the IBC as inserted some exceptions of its own. In Section 903.3.1.1, the section that applies NFPA 13, the IBC permits excluding sprinklers in the following areas:

• In areas where the use of water creates another fire or life safety hazard.
• In areas where it is considered undesirable to have sprinklers due to the nature of the areas’ contents, when approved by the building official.
• In generator and transformer rooms when separated by 2-hour fire-resistive assemblies.
• In areas of noncombustible construction with entirely noncombustible contents.

Lastly, the IBC permits the installation of alternative automatic fire-extinguishing systems in place of the sprinkler systems required in Section 903. These systems include wet-chemical, dry-chemical, clean-agent, foam, carbon dioxide, and halon extinguishing systems. It is important to note that the installation of these systems, when used as an alternative to sprinkler systems, must be approved by the building official. However, they can not be a substitute for sprinkler systems installed for the purposes of exceptions or reductions allowed by other requirements of the code (i.e., substitution for one-hour construction in Type IIA, IIIA and VA buildings).

According to the NFPA report, “the chances of dying in a fire are reduced by one-half to three-fourths, and the average property loss per fire is cut by one-half to two-thirds, compared to fires where sprinklers are not present.” 1 Because of this potential, some jurisdictions have made fire sprinklers mandatory. The City of Phoenix, through its Bret Tarver Sprinkler Ordinance2, now requires fire sprinkler systems installed in buildings of all occupancy groups, except for R-3 occupancies less than 5,000 square feet. But, Phoenix wasn’t the first: in 1986, the City of Scottsdale required sprinkler systems in all construction—including one- and two-family homes. It’s in one- and two-family homes where fires have cost the most in number of lost lives; and, it’s also where the fewest sprinkler systems are installed.

For those who use building codes, they know that the codes only provide the minimum standards for building construction. There is nothing in the code that prevents an owner from exceeding the code requirements. This includes installing sprinkler systems when not required or implementing compartmentation (separation of spaces with fire barriers ) even when a sprinkler system is installed. A prudent owner, knowledgeable in the fire risks associated with their building type, knows that they save could save more money than the initial costs of installing fire protection, not to mention lives, if a fire event should occur in their building with the added fire protection.

1 U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Fire Extinguishing Equipment, “Executive Summary,” National Fire Protection Association, August 2005, page i.

2 Named for Bret Tarver, a Phoenix fire fighter who lost his life during a supermarket fire March 14, 2001. The supermarket had no fire sprinkler system.

To comment on this article, suggest other topics, or submit a question regarding codes, contact the author at ron@specsandcodes.com

About the Author: Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP, is an ICC Certified Building Plans Examiner, and is the principal of RLGA Technical Services located in Scottsdale, Arizona, which provides specification and code consulting services to architects, engineers, owners, and product manufacturers. A 1984 graduate of the Univers ity of Arizona, Ron has over 22 years of experience with military, public, and private agencies.