Yes! I looked at the 2012 ROP rejecting your proposal and posted this before I checked the 2012 ed. of #13. I am not sure how ROP's and ROC's work exactly. Why would The 2012 ROP page 13-59 still have your 2" gap in there, and be rejected?
-----Original Message----- From: Roland Huggins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Intent of 8.15.1.2.7 But the 2" air gap was accepted at the ROC (and existed in the 2010 ed as part of 8.15.1.2.17) Roland On May 17, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Brad Casterline wrote: > Steve, > > Here is a possible twist though regarding the latest ROP (or maybe I > have > not followed through completely): Page 13-59 says ENTIRELY means > exactly > that, so Roland's 2" max gap was rejected. But page 13-86 says the > 3000 min. > operating area for non-sprinklered comb. concealed spaces is not > required > when the space is full of non-comb. insulation with a max 2" gap! Is > this > 'circular reasoning' or my lack of comprehension? Can it be that a > distinction has to be made between comb. concealed spaces- those > that allow > occupancy above them (floor decks) and those that do not (roof decks)? > > Thanks, > Brad > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
