the problem is that you are reading it with a interpretation in mind from a quick initial read. Ed hit it on the nose although using EH and LH is a better example since the size of the RA differs. As others have said - read the Annex which provides examples.
Granted when we said (we being the TC but I was on the task group that developed this concept in 99 - look in the HAndbook not the standard) SPRINKLER PROTECTION it does imply the presence of sprinklers, We should have said sprinkler CRITERIA. It does not replace the Room Design method. If it isn't crystal clear after studying the annex, give me a call. Roland Since I invoked the name of the omnipotent TC, I should chant the TC member mantra - this is not to b considered a formal interpretation of NFPA or its TC. Not to be equated with the infamous lines - We're from the federal government. We're here to help you. On Mar 22, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Richardson, R wrote: > Thanks for the thoughts. > > However, the way section 11.1.12 is written, there is no pointer to > the room design requirements as being applicable as well. > > In effect you seem to be saying that section 11.1.2 is not allowed > unless each side of the wall is large enough to facilitate a full > operating area (with allowable reductions of course) per NFPA13. > > I am having trouble reaching that conclusion based on the language > in the standard. > > Intent versus what was actually written I suppose, but usually in my > world the actual language overrides the intent, except in the case > of imminent life safety hazard, likely not the case here. > > Rich > _______________________________________________ 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)
