I've given up on trying to predict what the TC would do. Unless a
hook can be found to LOOSELY attach it to a proposal, only the TIA
route is open for this cycle. This cycle being the 2010 edition.
Since this is an explicit KNOWN allowance in the standard, it would
be challenging to legitimately claim that it is an emergency. It can
still move forward without that part passing but it's harder.
No one called it a flaw. Some of the things said were: It defies
logic (guess who -lol) and apparently the magical residential
sprinkler doesn't have the same problem.
I am not claiming anything here but some things inadvertently
happen. For instance, we took a sprinkler that was developed for
regular residential dwellings and then allowed it to be applied in a
high rise building. This was when the fire test for its listing
stopped at 10 minutes. This remained the case until another test lab
raised questions about rooms flashing over during lab tests at the
0.035 densities levels. This lead to changes to the allowed foams
used for the test. Additionally a minimum discharge of 0.05 was
imposed (just like when we once allowed less than 7 psi for
residential sprinklers) as well as having to calculate it at 0.1
using the SXL method. Some time later the test was also extended to
30 minutes but that didn't really impact things like the other
changes. BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. The 3,000 sf has been part of
13 a long time under the occupancy hazard approach. Back when we had
NFPA 231C etc, it was questionable whether it applied even to
storage. That was resolved in the 2007 edition when it was added to
chap 12. Once residential was recognized as being acceptable for all
residential dwelling including 13 systems, it was added as an
alternate and equally acceptable approach to using spray sprinklers.
The link to the 3000 sf issue was not part of the change so laid
dormant. It IS a known issue and as identified in the Sprinkler
Handbook, the 3000 sf does not apply. Having said that, I am going
to be shocked if it doesn't change (though not necessarily this cycle).
Truth be told, though, how many 13 systems using residential have non-
protected concealed combustible spaces? Never say never but the
lower height buildings get almost all the trade-up using a 13R so why
do a 13 (yes there is always site driven issues in SoCal etc) and the
high rises being Type I, how often is this an issue. I did start
that as a rhetorical question but makes sense to ask the Forum for
their experience. After all, during the recent ROP meeting when
discussing Boat Storage I commented that Boat storage often uses the
rack to support the roof whereas warehouses don't. Guess I should
have said it didn't back when I was directly involved with them.
Roland
On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Thom McMahon wrote:
Roland:
If the Committee is considering changes to the Res. / 3000 Sf
application area, would that come as a TIA to the 2007, or wait for
the next full cycle?
I was talking to another committee member that thought it would
move pretty fast, to correct what they saw as a flaw.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
_______________________________________________
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)
