Agreed Ron & Craig Craig, when the Architect asked him for his code reference that required sprinklers, this is the paragraph he referred to, even though it doesn't have anything to do with the issue.
NFPA 13 (1999) 7-1.2 For buildings with two or more adjacent occupancies that are not physically separated by a barrier or partition capable of delaying heat from a fire in one area from fusing sprinklers in the adjacent area, the required sprinkler protection for the more demanding occupancy shall extend 15 ft (4.6 m) beyond its perimeter. We can't seem to find a central management board or committee. That is the whole issue. I think his department is flawed in this respect but for now my opinions don't get the builders building opened. I think the Architect will pursue the overall issue with standardization soon prior to any more projects. I wish all of our legal advice were this reasonable ! Thanks for all the responses. Don -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Detached Porte Cochere We're all running on presumptions here, including, apparently, the AHJ, but if the construction type, size and occupancy of the porteco do not require sprinklers by any state or local code and if the separation is sufficient to not present an exposure (you'll have to do your own code checking, or better yet the architect needs to) then sprinklers are not required. NFPA 13 will not tell you in any place what types of structures, based on occupancy, size, construction type or exposure, need sprinklers but it will tell you where and how to lay out sprinklers when necessary. THIS IS NOT A SPRINKLER ISSUE! At least not yet. And again, in countries subscribing to a western liberal democratic philosophy (disclaimer; Republicanism is western liberal democratic before I start a political debate--not capital R, lower case d), particularly one based on English Common Law, you are free to do whatever you want provided you harm no one else and any proscription to that basic concept must be in writing and specific. You can't do it because a proscriptive document (NFPA 13 for instance) doesn't mention that you can does not hold water. Once again, very cheap legal advice. On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:40 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > So where is his documentation saying that sprinklers are required? Remember we've discussed this kind of situation many times. So before caving in I'd ask for the code references upon which he bases his opinion. I'd tell him that the owner isn't going to provide something unless it's required and the owner needs to see it in writing in the "code". > > Tell him you're going to have to get a change order from the owner and you need proof of the requirement. That way it's not a direct challenge and forces him to come up with black and white requirements not just "sumthin he thunk up". If he can't produce it then throw it back at him. > > Other measure is to call his department manager or other supervisor for a clarification, don't give names or projects, you're just doing research of a requirement for a prospective project and get them to provide chapter and verse if it is a requirement of theirs. Then make sure to get a name, log the time and date and take good notes. If you can get them to e-mail you the same info that would be even better. If it turns out to not be a requirement you can use the name and date and quote the response to the local yokel. > > > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Specialist > Mechanical Department > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > [email protected] > http://www.ch2m.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Don Lowry > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:13 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Detached Porte Cochere > > Rick, > > Yes, that is the issue. The builder / Architect don't want to do the required connection of the buildings, but the DADS Inspector for this region apparently interprets differently than the last regional inspector did. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a standard statewide, and the decisions are left to the individual inspectors. This makes it hard for the builders to have a set of specific rules to follow when designing the building. Since the DADS inspectors don't review drawings prior to construction, (Arch or FP) it ends up being an issue when it's down to the wire to open. This particular inspector made the statement that he "didn't care what the IBC or IFC states, we use NFPA codes" and it didn't matter if the city's Building Official or Fire Marshal said. > Guess this will be a learning experience for the Architect. > > Thanks for the responses. I can tell the builder that I tried :>) > > Don > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matsuda, Richard > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:15 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Detached Porte Cochere > > Don, > If this is some kind of care facility in Texas, then the state inspector has slightly different requirements...and if you don't comply, then the care facility might not receive state certification or any state funding. > The state inspector might be interpreting the 6-foot clearance between the buildings as insufficient for this combustible construction...and so he considers the porteco as part of the main building. > > rick matsuda > city of dallas > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Don Lowry > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 6:32 AM > To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler. org > Subject: Re: Detached Porte Cochere > > Combustible > Don Lowry > Sent via BlackBerry > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerfor > um > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerfor um > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerfor um > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerfor um For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
