In NFPA 101, section 9.7.1.2 there is an allowance to install up to 6 sprinkler heads for the protection of a hazardous area without requiring a licensed sprinkler contractor and design. For many years we've provided this as an option when furnaces and boilers needed separation, but installing sheetrock on the ceiling is next to impossible. We'd provided all the criteria and required the installer to meet said criteria. What we found was that in most cases the math didn't work out for the required flow yet, plumbers would state they had met the criteria.
Wondering how many places see this option being used and how it is handled? For our municipal water system most residential building wouldn't be able to supply more than two heads using 9.7.1.2, thus requiring a smoke proof "enclosure" to reduce teh covered area. This also results in a major problem as the fuel burning appliance won't run cleanly or efficiently without adequate make-up air, resulting in doors being propped open.
Wondering what others have seen, done or required?
Hi rfd:
Yes I have used this option in some of the unsprinklered residential health care facilities to meet the general provisions of Section 8.7 in combination with specific requirements of _3.2 subsections of the occupancy chapter. The building were existing prior to the latest adoption of NFPA 101.
"...installing sheetrock on the ceiling is next to impossible..."
This is how I applied NFPA 101. For the smoke partition separation (8.4 does not address horizontal construction such as floor and roofs) - if there is at a floor above and sheet rock was not required for the construction type, just seal the penetrations and openings as a smoke barrier required by Section 8.6.1(1). There are no enclosure requirements for roof/ceiling construction - only the partitions.
"...What we found was that in most cases the math didn't work out for the required flow yet, plumbers would state they had met the criteria..." In this case during the plan review or field observation, I would require an engineering judgement by a fire protection engineer or equal. Unless there is approved "cook book" type of evaluation in your regulations where you fill out the blanks to do the math. Otherwise, the owner by using a fire protection engineer or equal must evaluation the domestic water piping to ensure the code is being met and to suggest some design options to do so. I do not think the AHJ has the expertise and responsibility to do the evaluation and design work.
"...This also results in a major problem as the fuel burning appliance won't run cleanly or efficiently without adequate make-up air, resulting in doors being propped open..."
If I would see this during the plan review or field observation, I would request the design information including drawings for the make-up air. Since here are so many options that make up air can be provided in a design, I would have required an mechanical engineer or equal to design the equipment requirements. However NFPA 101 does allow the doors in the smoke partitions to be self-closing and air transfer openings with smoke dampers. Here again, I do not think the AHJ has the expertise and responsibility to do the evaluation and design work.
Maybe this comment would help others to comment.