The '88 may be the current legal standard. We were in the '99 until 7/07. We're in the '02 now and I'd bet it will be '12 or beyond before we change.
When the '99 came out and we were legally in the '96. I wouldn't let contractors use the '99 as AHJ because I didn't like the way the obstructions were changed in LH and OH to only include structural members. Totally in my rights as AHJ. To use the '99 at the time would technically require an equivalency. Well as I saw it the obstruction issue wasn't equivalent. When the '99 was adopted at the State I jumped to the '02 as a standard accepted equivalency adopted by City Council as the minimum. The obstruction issue was a little better. Every contractor jumped to the '02. Now being mini-maxi I would have actually had to accept the '99 if pushed as it was the State standard. I could accept '02 but couldn't technically force it legally. No one ever pushed the issue and in reality I did it with some ignorance then and know better now. I don't doubt for a second the '88 is still used someplace as the adopted standard. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13D Question 1988 Edition My big question is, who cares, what it says in the 1988 Standard. What does the current adopted Standard say? Someone needs to increase his budget so he can get caught up to the 21st century. 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 [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13D Question 1988 Edition In all my almost 40 years experience,I have never seen anything 13,13D, or 13R limit the number of sprinklers in a compartment.There must be a misinterpretation on the part of the AHJ.It happens. Lamar Vaughn,SET ---- "Travis Mack wrote: > Again, going from memory as well. Isn't / Wasn't there something > saying that you need to use the fewest number of sprinklers able to > protect the area. So, if you have a 20'x30' room, you need to use 2 > sprinklers at 20'x20' spacing, instead of using 4 at 16'x16'. Using 2 > sprinklers, you are calculating flowing 40 gallons for the 2 > sprinklers vs 26 gallons for 2 sprinklers with 4 heads in the room, > both scenarios protecting the same space. Is that possibly what he is referring to? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob > Knight > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: 13D Question 1988 Edition > > Mike, > Going from memory, I don't have any standards with me, there is a > requirement for QR sprinklers not exceeding 4. I believe that this is > actually a 13R requirement though. Maybe this is the confussion. > > Bob Knight > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike > Cabral > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: 13D Question 1988 Edition > > I have an AHJ that is telling a designer that there can not be 4 > sprinklers in a single compartment. I was told that he is working off > an old standard from 1988 or so. Anyone have recollection of this. > > Mike Cabral > _______________________________________________ > 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) > > > > > __________ NOD32 4168 (20090618) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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) _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
