Roland, Since you were there:), could you please clarify the intent of the committee for 11.1.2 in regards to spacing? The verbiage in the standard states '...the required sprinkler protection...' which literally would seem to include all requirements of the sprinkler protection, i.e. spacing and hydraulic criteria. But since it is in the Design Approaches chapter (aka, hydraulic approaches chapter) I am a little unsure if the statement is indeed intended to relate to the spacing and hydraulic criteria or only to relate to the hydraulic criteria.
Any insight would be appreciated. Damien Shannon. QED Sprinkler Designs, Inc. 2836 N. Drake Ave, Unit: Coach House Chicago, IL. 60618 Phone: (773) 704 2571 Fax: (866) 308 1367 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Room Design vs. Adjacent Hazards 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) __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4966 (20100322) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4966 (20100322) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ 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)
