You can lead an AHJ to water but you can't make him think. Or see what you think is obvious. Might want to print out responses from the Forum and show him what your peers say and cite (save this for when he still says No).
George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:52 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement All said and done, I think it's pretty clear that the intent is to allow the use of those sprinklers. SL ________________________________ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 11:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement The 2002 version of 8.3.2.3 differs from 2010 only by the inclusion of "intermediate temp" in the text. The "store" will be display in room style settings, no "storage". The roof is at 27 feet and is a panelized wood structure with open web wood joist on 8' centers, and I agree with you on the benefit of the 286* F sprinklers providing better performance. Mark at Aero ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:14 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org>; sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement At home this morning and don't have the 2002 NFPA 13 laying around, but it may be that if the older standard doesn't include the conditional application granted in 8.3.2.3 (2010 ed.) then he or she is holding you to the letter of the 2002. You might want to point out that the intent of any TC can generally be found in the latest edition of a standard. When you say furniture retail, is this going to be a showroom only, with the sales floor done up as "rooms" for display only? Or will there be an area for storage as well, and what fire load overall do you anticipate? Seems to me that even a moderate load of furniture can still generate a pretty high release of energy and the 286 sprinklers (as Ron mentioned, I think) may well respond more symettrically. What is the height of the deck above and what's it framed with? SL ________________________________ From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of mphe...@aerofire.com Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 5:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement What we have is High temp heads installed in an ordinary hazard occupancy. I believe 8.3.2.3 does explicitly allow this. The inspector has a different opinion. My position is 8.3.2.3 doesn't leave room for opinions, and wasn't intended to! Mark at Aero ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Verhei [mailto:bver...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:47 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement Mark My understanding of this is to ensure that ordinary temp heads are replaced with at least intermediate heads are installed to prevent head operation in absence of a fire. Bv Sent from my Motorola ATRIX(tm) 4G on AT&T -----Original message----- From: Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 22:40:08 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement as Todd already said, it is explicitly allowed by 8.3.2.3 unless the AHJ is trying to call it a light hazard occupancy. Roland On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, <mphe...@aerofire.com> <mphe...@aerofire.com > wrote: > I have a Friday question for the forum, and maybe Roland is able to > respond > with some "intent" perspective. In a 27' high industrial > spec building, we > installed sprinkler heads rated at 286 degree. > This was permitted, > installed, inspected and approved. The owner now > has a tenant lease which > will build out the entire building as a > retail furniture showroom, no > ceiling and no storage. The local fire > inspector is siting NFPA 2002 > Edition section 8.3.2.2, "Where > maximum ceiling temperatures exceed 100 > degrees F, sprinklers with > temperature ratings in accordance with the > maximum ceiling > temperatures of Table 6.2.5.1 shall be used." , as a > requirement to > remove all the sprinklers in the building and replace them > with 212 > degree F sprinklers. My contention is that the next section, > > 8.3.2.3 "High temperature sprinklers shall be permitted to be used > > throughout ordinary and extra hazard occupancies and as allowed in > this > standard and other NFPA codes and standards.", allows the > existing 286 degree sprinklers to remain and be in compliance with > NFPA 13. What say the professionals, Roland, Steve, George, Ron, > Rod, Anyone .....? > Mark at Aero > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120928/c513f5a8/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/bf582009/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7399 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/f87ea66e/attachment.bin> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
