Nobody sleeping in the doorway except on some holidays. With this small a space and location, wall wetting height is in my view not a big issue. You have the area covered with what you have. Some common sense would be in order here.
Adding a second head won't do anything . . . first one to operate will be the only one to operate. I do agree with keeping the head away from possible impact during moving stuff in and out. NFPA Disclaimer here former member AUT- RES 2010 Mike Sent from my iPhone On Jun 12, 2012, at 3:29 PM, "Bruce Verhei"<[email protected]> wrote: > > Mike > > As a former wizard, per RG, my request at review would be to locate the > single head on the inboard side if the light fixture. Turnover in apartments > can be high. Putting head near door invites broken head results from rotating > furniture trying to get it out the door. > Bv > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T > > -----Original message----- > From: "Matsuda, Richard" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Sent: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 19:40:41 GMT+00:00 > Subject: RE: residential obstructions > > Yes, it was a joke...and so was the two sprinklers. > > Reading the code book in "black and white" is something that you can > teach anybody...but reading the code and interpreting the "grey" areas > takes time, training, and experience. > > For this specific situation, just one sprinklers as far from the light > fixture as possible or a sidewall sprinkler as suggested by Dewayne for > future jobs. However, ask me again tomorrow when I'm not so > tired...(another joke). > rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: residential obstructions > > Rick, > Hopefully that 6" drop nipple is a joke. I remember, though it is more > blurry today than in the past, being a young lad who had to jump up and > grab > everything in sight just to see if I could do it. To reinforce this > memory > I have four boys between 8 and 16 years and every one of them wants to > see > if the can touch, hit, smack, or otherwise reach nearly every target in > sight. In an apartment complex environment, that drop nipple wouldn't > last > the first kid. Two sprinklers in a 5 x 5 entry would be ridiculous > overkill. > The purpose in to get the occupants out of the building and surely that > one > sprinkler, though partially obstructed on one side would do the trick. > > My thoughts, > > Bob Knight, CET III > 208-318-3057 > www.firebyknight.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matsuda, > Richard > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: residential obstructions > > > There is some guidance in the handbook to allow some "shadowing" from > partial height walls, ceiling fans, lights, and other architectual > featuers...but there is no way to cover every circumstance that will > occur > in the real world so you really have to use some judgement. > > Ask the inspector to stand with his back at the door and see when he can > and > cannot see the sprinkler to determine the actual obstruction....line of > sight method. Then look at the area that is obstructed to determine what > if > anything might be located in this space that might be burning. A 3-foot > door > will take up at least half of the space so there's really nothing to > protect > in the obstructed area except the door and walls. > > At worse, he will ask you to add another sprinkler on the other side of > the > light fixture...so two sprinklers in the 5 x 5-foot entry. If that seems > like an overkill, then it probably is. > I vote for one sprinkler on a 6-inch drop nipple to clear the light > fixture. > :) rick matsuda city of dallas > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George > Church > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: residential obstructions > > I'm interested in feedback on a situation which is occurring fairly > frequently. The specifics may vary slightly, but the concept is always > the > same. > In this case, I have an entranceway to an apartment. The entranceway is > roughly 5' x 5'. The ceiling has a soffit 7' above fin. floor. The main > apartment ceiling is 8' above fin. floor. There is a surface mounted > light > near the center of the entranceway soffit. The light is 4 3/4" > deep at the center & is a domed light. The light is 1'-2" wide at the > base. > I located a recessed pendent residential head within 6" of the edge of > the > soffit. My head is 1'-10" from the center of the light. > The local inspector has stated that I am in violation of 13-R. > Technically, he is correct. My head is too close to the light given the > difference in depth of the light vs. the depth of my deflector. Now, > there > isn't enough room in the soffit to locate my head & meet code. My head > would > be out of the soffit. Rather counter-productive to say the least. In > addition, if you look at the domed profile of the light, there really > isn't > much of an obstruction. This, especially considering the very small > space > that the head is covering. > I ask for two things: > 1. Input - as in, is my view valid or am I really missing the big > picture? > 2. If I am correct, is there any documentation I can show the inspector? > ( I have already offered to provide the text from the 13-R handbook. To > me, > if you read the intent & history of the obstructions rules, this really > isn't an issue. It's extremely similar to the 400 cubic foot closet > exception. > > Thank you in advance for any assistance that can be provided. > Regards, > Michael G. Haley > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > 7993 US Hwy 522 > PO Box 407 > Middleburg, PA 17842 > 570-837-7647 > 570-837-6335 fax > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2433/5064 - Release Date: > 06/12/12 > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120612/a8946059/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
