During a seminar at an AFSA convention (not last yr, probably 06) Chris Dubay noted it was not the intent of the committee to require multiple heads in closets, bathrooms, and other small rooms. He stated if this was requested by an AHJ, he'd be happy to write a letter reiterating what he said.
Since then, he's been elevated to chief engineer and VP, not to mention the standards council and James Hall sits in his old chair as staff liason to #13. I'd imagine Mr. Hall would respond to a similar request, and you can get an informal interpretation from AFSA. If you know any #13 committee members, one of them might write a similar letter. Greg, unless you omit PE from after your name for some reason, you're in the same boat I'm in- we can have opinions, but we can't render them into anything of substance. Todd, you have that cursed responsibility that comes with being a RDP. It's a fine line to where you can and cannot omit heads along this logic, and unwritten rules and "understandings" are tough to point to! While a 90 SF bathroom may not need a 2nd and certainly not a 3rd head, would it if it were 110 SF? We put a second residential head in #13R systems when a 10x12 bedroom has a ceiling fan. Is it needed? Under the rules of the game, YES. Just as your 90 SF bathroom needs additional heads. We don't want to under protect a bedroom, especially with a fan possibly delaying operation of a head. The case could be made that most people are awake when in a bathroom, and the "intent" rule could be applied. I'd pursue some interpretation- from NFPA, AFSA, or the local AHJ- in writing, and stick a head in the bathroom. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13 residential obstructions I believe Roland and others interpret pockets to be greater than 12" deep. I also believe common sense MUST be used in some cases and 3 sprinklers in a 90 sqft bathroom would probably not make a significant improvement of life safety or property protection in my humble opinion based on many discussions with the manufacturer's tech support in issues similar to this. Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13 residential obstructions Can you cover the room with a single sidewall sprinkler installed flush with the bottom of the soffits/bulkheads? Use a residential sprinkler listed for upto 12 inches below the ceiling. The flow for the 0.1 density might still be greater than the listed flow for 12 inches below the ceiling. Tony -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: January 29, 2008 5:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: 13 residential obstructions I am working on a modification to an existing system in a residential occupancy. The design basis for the system is NFPA 13 (2002) Section 11.2.3.5 (4 residential sprinkelrs, 0.10 density). In the revision, the architect has added soffits and drop ceiling areas in certain rooms. As an example, in the bathroom (>54 sqft), there are two areas where the ceiling is 1 ft lower than the rest of the space, and greater than 30" from the wall. Due to the size of the room, the distance required for obstructions against a wall cannot be met. Section 8-10, which covers installation of residential sprinklers, does not incorporate the same criteria for ceiling pockets as the sections for commercial sprinklers. This being the case, the bathroom will require 3 sprinklers instead of 1 if the soffits are not there. The entire room is 90 square feet. Three sprinklers does seem like overkill. We could switch to a commercial quick response sprinkler for this space, but I do not necessarily want to mix residential and commercial within a unit. It could create problems down the road for maintenance. This project has enough of a sordid history. Any thoughts? Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
