Logic? Try this. Shell retail space with 4-12 pitch wood roof. Rough in core and shell system for OH2 at 10 ft. x 12 ft. spacing. Tenant installs a suspended ceiling. The attic is now light hazard combustible concealed space that must comply with 8.6.4.1.4. A lesser hazard yet the OH2 design is lacking.
It's my understanding the spacing requirements of 8.6.4.1.4 are a result of full scale testing. If testing proved the spacing works why is a 30% increase of the RA still required? Some of the many mysteries in 13. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Combustible concealed space NFPA 13, 2007, 8.6.4.1.4 Does it apply only if the space is "concealed"? A 13 building has an attic with 12:6 roof slope, which is sprinklered and has to conform to 8.6.4.1.4. Some areas in this attic has mechanical rooms with exposed roof structure as the rest of the attic. Hence my question. I would think it should apply to all steep pitched roofs or ceilings. If not, what is the logic? (if logic even enters into the question. Ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die). Tony _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
