Ron - you need to realize that you shouldn't walk on thin ice (typically not something you encounter in Phoenix).
Granted the wording is poor but this section is saying that smaller orifices apply to light hazard. This is one of those issue that are ASSUMED to be understood and will probably take a few attempts to get the TC to realize that they really have not adequately addressed it. We effectively have an exception presented in 8.3.4.1 to a base requirement that is NOT stated anywhere. This is not unlike how far down from the ceiling does a structural member extend in order to be classified as obstructed construction. It took three cycles to have it identified as 4 inches. Roland On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Ed Kramer wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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)
