I have to second George's response. Having an AOR or EOR or AHJ tell you it's OK to design a sprinkler system that doesn't meet applicable standards (NFPA 13 in this case) doesn't shield you from liability if something goes wrong. As a sprinkler contractor, you're generally not considered a code expert. But any plaintiff lawyer worth his salt will successfully paint you as a sprinkler expert. As a sprinkler expert, you should have know to design for 3000 sf.
OK, back to my regularly scheduled day job. Ed "J Cochran" Kramer > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 10:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Building trade off update > > Only one question- was the mtg documented so you have a copy to take to > court in 2014? > > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Building trade off update > > > I wanted to follow up and let everyone who helped me think through the > process know what happened. This was a new two story courthouse (A3) > with a combustible attic above the 2nd floor and a single (B) occupancy > attached adjacent on the ground floor. IBC 2009. He was sprinklering > the basement, 1st and 2nd but not the attic. We met with the Architect > and and asked him if he could educate us on his decision tree that > allowed: > > > 1. No sprinklers in the combustible attic that was draft stopped > every 3,000 ft. > 2. Install fire protection on the first and second floors (not > required systems in the A3) to allow a reduction in fire rating of the > corridor walls, stairs, and the wall separating the courtroom A3 from > the B occupancy. > 3. His logic for not mandating an increase of the design area on the > 2nd floor to 3,000 ft. > > His answers were: > > > 1. The IBC 2009 doesn't require sprinklers except for the basement, > so NFPA 13 isn't applicable. > 2. He stated that the IBC allows for reduction with partial systems. > 901.2 "exception" > 3. He believed that because partial systems are allowed and that > because the code didn't require a system in the attic that we wouldn't > need to increase our area on the 2nd floor even though the combustible > attic above was unsprinklered. > > We took the advice of GC / Roland and others and listened and accepted > what he said. The tone of the meeting was very good and at the end of > the day I am glad he chose more sprinklers than required in lieu of more > rating. I personally don't agree with the lack of increase in area ( > question #3) but as it has been pointed out...... not my decision. > > Thanks for all the input and help. We learn and move on. > > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire Protection > > _______________________________________________ > 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:Sprinklerforum- > [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:Sprinklerforum- > [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)
