Ron, I'm with you. Nothing in 8.3.4.1 prohibits small orifice sprinks in OH. The commentary to section 8.3.4.1 then makes a leap of faith and says otherwise.
There was a proposal in the 2010 ROP that would have changed 8.3.4.1. The committee rejected it and said "The submitter is correct, this [using small orifice sprinks in OH hazard] is not allowed, it violates the listing of the sprinklers." Yea, that helps. Another proposal was submitted at the ROC level and was also rejected. It seems to me the intent of 8.3.4.1 is to not allow small orifice sprinks in OH, but someone was on crack when they wrote it. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO > 8.3.4 doesn't say for light hazard "only" and it doesn't prohibit the > use of small orifice sprinklers in OH. The Tyco TY-FRB is UL Listed in > 2.8k,4.2k, 5.6k and 8k for light and ordinary hazard. If it's Listed for > OH why couldn't it be used? > > I would probably call the company that submitted the plans and ask for > supporting information like an area water main map with elevations > etc... With the right information the validity of the flow test could be > determined. It isn't unusual for a building to be near completion before > the extended water system is in place and ready to be tested. > > Ron Fletcher > Aero Automatic > Phoenix, AZ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
