Tony-
If it helps you, with respect to moving forward into a more recent standard 
than the adopted one:
When he was a mere mortal staff liason, Chris Dubay told me it was NFPA's 
stance that application of a new standard was to be considered equal or better. 
I believe this stance considers while the certain paragraph you mention may be 
less restrictive, the entire document is what is to be applied and that less 
restrictive paragraph may be more than made up for in other more restrictive 
wording s in other paragraphs. Understand you don't reach out to 2010 for the 
solo section you want to use, you need to apply the entire 2010 edition to the 
entire project.

We used this to provide an FRP tank for a church instead of a steel one before 
the 2008 edition of #22 was adopted in PA, since this is when FRP was first 
permitted above ground. Asked the BCO for permission to use the more recent 
edition, he naturally asked why, we told him, he accepted it, no big deal.

George Church'
Rowe Sprinkler
[email protected]
570-837-7647

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of A.P.Silva
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Fire Retardant Coating

When comparing 8.15.1.2.10  for 13, 2007 and 13, 2010

2007 states, "....demonstrated not to propogate fire when tested ....."

2010 states, "....demonstrated not to propogate fire more than 10.5 ft (3.2
m) when tested ....."

It appears the older 2007 is more stringent as it seems to not permit any 
spread, whereas the newer 2010 permits up to 10.5 feet. Is that the 
interpretation? My problem is the 2010 has not been adopted by the building 
code yet, and I'm not sure if I can use it if it is less stringent.

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: December 21, 2010 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fire Retardant Coating

On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:59 AM, A.P.Silva wrote:

> Answer to Question 1: I would also say it is the assembly. Else, 
> gypsum sheets (drywall) wrapped around wood members will not be 
> acceptable.


So your position is that drywall is not rigid? Excluding that new imported 
flexible stuff where the gypsum was  replaced with plastic ground into powder - 
lol.

>
> Answer to Question 2: 13, 2007 handbook has the follwing commentary:
> "......it is important
> To verify that the testing used to determine the material's 
> combustibility was conducted with the material arranged in the 
> position in which it is to be installed. Changes in the orientation or 
> arrangement of the material  can significantly change the flamespread 
> characteristics and the combustibility of the material." The 
> commentary seems to imply that it is the orientation.


You are absolutely correct though the Handbook text does not correlate with 
what the standard actually says.  The Handbooks are excellent documents but not 
always accurate.  I've flagged a few (very few) items for correction.
Remember when the Sprinkler Handbook said the hanger shall be perpendicular to 
the floor and the sprinkler shall be WITHIN 6 ft of the eave fro attics or the 
Pump Handbook when it said you were REQUIRED to have a jockey pump.

As you already pointed out, this interpretation does not correlate with the 
test standard so the logical conclusion is that this makes a possible fourth 
correction for the Sprinkler Handbook (which isn't bad for such a big document).

Guess I need to dot my i's and say as a member of NFPA 13 and one of the 
participants on updating the Sprinkler Handbook, this is just my opinion and is 
not to be considered a formal interpretation by NFPA or any of its technical 
committees.

Roland

_______________________________________________
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)
_______________________________________________
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)

Reply via email to