true but we are talking about apples and oranges - both are fruit but
are different.
Exception 5 allows (with AHJ approval) portions of a building to be
unprotected. If YOU wanted to, you could have a mechanical room in a
concrete basement with only pipes etc to exclude sprinklers. It
does not apply to concealed spaces since 13 does not require NON-
COMBUSTIBLE concealed spaces to be protected. As you pointed out,
when this allowance for omission (and those in 13) are applied, the
building is still considered protected THROUGH-OUT.
Now what does this have to do with the discussion on coated vs
pressure treated? We are in agreement that the code trumps the
standards. But the code is not requiring treated lumber. The code
allows standard lumber so it's done, sends you to 13, and is silent
thereafter. SInce it is not a construction issue but an installation
issue, 13 allows coated fire retardant lumber (with MAINTENANCE which
I ASSUME means recoated in the future - not goin to do it spoken in
the senior Bush accent that SNL had a blast with).
Worth noting that treated does not equal non-combustible. Any other
code reference that is considered applicable?
Roland
On Feb 8, 2007, at 11:28 AM, John Drucker wrote:
IBC 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 Sprinkler Systems.
"Where the provisions of this code REQUIRE that a building OR PORTION
thereof shall be equipped THROUGHOUT with an automatic fire sprinkler
system, sprinklers SHALL be installed THROUGHOUT in accordance with
NFPA-13 EXCEPT as provided in Sections 903.3.1.1.1, 903.3.1.2 and
903.3.1.3"
IBC 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Locations.
5. "In rooms or AREAS that are of non combustible construction with
wholly noncombustible contents".
Where a building code drives the sprinkler requirement, the provisions
of the building code "trump" those of the referenced standards.
John Drucker
Fire Protection Subcode Official
New Jersey
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
