By the way, you can read the NJ UCC Communicator articles on line at; http://www.state.nj.us/dca/codes/ccc_articles/ccc_articles_list.htm
John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lindner Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ceiling Clouds throughout Band / Choir Room Since I just happened to be passed a copy of the "UCC Communicator" for New Jersey where they discuss this very topic, thought I would pass along what NJ DCA thinks... Fire Sprinklers and Half Ceilings It has come to the Department of Community Affair's attention that designers are designing half ceilings (which are also called "clouds") without providing protection for the area above the half ceiling (clouds). Some engineers believe sprinklers are only required at the ceiling of the lowest area, and not in the concealed space between a full ceiling and half ceiling. That is not correct. In National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13, section 5-13.23, Spaces above Non-Storage Areas, requires the installation of sprinklers in the concealed spaces. The requirement is more clearly stated in the NFPA 13/2002 edition, where a language change specifies "*any* concealed ceiling area". (from "Construction Code Communicator", volume 19, Number 1, Spring 2007) On 8/16/07, Mark Sornsin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This whole thread highlights once more the need for someone to answer > these sorts of questions prior to the project going out to bid - but > most all reading this know that. This thread REALLY highlights a > situation where the average person (MEs included) would ASSUME > sprinklers are required below these clouds, but in reality - if > they're more than 18" below the ceiling heads - additional protection > MAY not be required by NFPA 13-'02 section 8.5.5. > > More specifically, 8.5.5.3 would allow the omission of sprinklers > below clouds located more than 18" beneath the ceiling heads - even if > the clouds were 3' x 3' and spaced 6" apart throughout the room. > Something about this situation doesn't sit right with me. If this > situation (or > Chuck's) ever came to litigation and no protection was provided below > the clouds, wouldn't the lawyers point to 8.5.1.2? This section > states "Sprinklers shall be positioned... consistent with the overall > objectives of this standard..." This statement seems just vague enough > to cause trouble for those only looking at 8.5.5.3. > > As an "engineer of record" I will certainly use that section (8.5.1.2) > as justification for providing sprinklers below clouds that may not > need them by 8.5.5.3. At least until full scale testing and loss > history teaches us something different. > > Mark A. Sornsin, PE > Fire Protection Engineer > Ulteig Engineers, Inc. > Fargo, ND > 701.280.8591 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
