Small until you do a large complex and add 30% of the heads-OUCH!
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 Rod DiBona Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 12:04 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stupid closet question... Duane, Thanks for the excellent analysis and clear delineation of the small yet significant differences. Rod at Rapid -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 7:25 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Stupid closet question... Based on NFPA 13, 2010 edition and NFPA 101, 2009 edition. Annex D is not part of the enforceable section of NFPA 13, unless a jurisdiction specifically adopts it (see section heading). In this case, Annex D is copied from NFPA 101, so if a jurisdiction adopts NFPA 101, it is enforceable from that perspective, but I would go do NFPA 101 directly, not Annex D of NFPA 13. As for the differences in requirements, per NFPA 101:1.2 the purpose of this code is to provide safety to life from fire while NFPA 13:1.2 has a purpose to provide a reasonable degree of protection for life and property. The two codes have slightly different purposes, hence they may have different design requirements for sprinklers. The committee agreed in the 2009 ROP to move NFPA 101 requirements to the Annex (see proposal 13-444). More importantly, the paragraphs you mention are for different occupancies. The exception from NFPA 13:8.15.8.2 to eliminate sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. is for Hotels and Motels only. The exception from Annex D or NFPA 101:30.3.5.4 to exclude sprinklers in closets 12 sq. ft. or less is for New Apartments only. Interestingly, NFPA 101:31.3.5.4 permits the exclusion of sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. for Existing Apartments. So, in reality, the NFPA 13 and Annex D references you cited do not contradict because they are for different occupancies. However, if you look at NFPA 101:29.3.5.5, Existing hotels and Dorms have the exception to exclude sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. But this is for Existing Hotels and Dorms only, there is not an exception in NFPA 101 for New Hotels and Dorms. This is arguably a difference from NFPA 13 to NFPA 101. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Tower [mailto:cur...@centralfireprotection.net] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Stupid closet question... Of course, I was only speaking of "adopted" codes. I'm not familiar with all of the various code sets available for a jurisdiction to consider; however, the prevalent code set in Texas is IFC. IFC references NFPA 13 and 13R specifically for its installation requirements. What I was ultimately alluding to was that if a jurisdiction had adopted NFPA 101, then it appeared that closets < 12s.f. could be omitted. This question came up from a chapter contained in NFPA 2007, Special Occupancy Requirements, Section 21.20.13.2.1. At the end of the sub-section NFPA 101, 30.3.5.4 was bracketed. It is my understanding that a fair amount within that chapter was erroneously included in the 2007 standard. Fast forward to the 2010 Edition, and it was moved to a new Annex D. I think this was to try to alleviate any confusion on what was required. Annex D was titled Sprinkler System Information from the 2009 Edition of the Life Safety Code. My understanding is that if the adopted cod e is anything other than NFPA 101, then the exceptions and omissions stated withing Annex D may and probably do not apply. Of course, I'm always open to debate. Curtis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Greenman" <rongreen...@gmail.com> To: <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 6:26 PM Subject: Re: Stupid closet question... This is the conventional wisdom Curtis but I disagree. All model codes and standards are simply books until adopted, no matter what they are called. I'll use Washington as an example: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) stipulates there will be a building code. The Building Code itself derives from the International Building Code (currently the 2009 edition) and all the references and amendments as proposed by the State Building Code Council as submitted to the governor and adopted by the legislature. In its final form it is called the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 51-50, although we'll refer to it as the IBC in conversation. In the end though, before adoption it has no power of enforcement and after after adoption a referenced standard is a part of the WAC. So when chapter 9 of IBC references NFPA 13 and is adopted that way then NFPA 13 is a very long part of WAC 51-50, not some child of a lesser god. Had the legislature decided to not adopt the chapter 9 reference to NFPA 13 in IBC, but instead had replaced it with Hop On Pop or Cat In the Hat then that would be the sprinkler rules and criterion within 51-50. That a "code" tells you when and a "standard" tells you how is essentially a correct statement that only applies as separate and hierarchical as long as they are co-joined as one thing under the Law. Once adopted chapter 9, section X (I forget the number off-hand) is the code and, if sprinklers are required per Chapters 3 & 6, contains the how rules for installation. NFPA 101 unadopted is merely a very boring book and has no force of law no matter what the title may say about code, standard, what have you. On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Curtis Tower < cur...@centralfireprotection.net> wrote: > I believe that the root of the confusion stems from semantics. NFPA > 101 is referred to as a code, where NFPA 13, 13R, etc., is referred to > as a standard. Many times, I have heard those of us in the business > use the term 'code' interchangeably with the term 'standard'. This is > technically incorrect. > > Gov't entities have a plethora of code sets to choose from when > deciding what to adopt. Most incorporated cities in Texas have > adopted one version or another of IFC, most with local amendments. > Tarrant County, which oversees the unincorporated sections surrounding > the Fort Wort area, has adopted NFPA 101. > > To simplify things a bit... > > Code says WHAT gets sprinklered. > > The Standard says HOW. > > Example: NFPA 13R does not require balconies to be sprinklered; > however, if the adopted code is IFC 2006, for example, then the > balconies will be sprinklered. > > In summation, your honor. > > If a jurisdiction has adopted NFPA 101, then it appears that the 12 s.f. > closet can be omitted. By most other codes that I'm aware of, under > NFPA 13, the closets will be sprinklered regardless of size, with the > exception of hotels and motels under the stated criteria. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "C&H Fire - Mike Gallello" < > mgalle...@chfireinc.com> > To: <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org > <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:25 PM > Subject: Stupid closet question... > > > It's likely been asked before, but I don't recall - so please excuse > my possible ignorance! > > NFPA 13, 2010 - 8.15.8.2 Dwelling units, closets - hotels and motels > they can be deleted, conditionally regarding the 24sf and 3ft rule. > > Annex D (Pulled from NFPA 101) in two separate areas (D1.1.6.1 & > D2.19.2.1) states that closets under 12sf in dwelling units shall not > be required to be sprinklered. The referenced 101 code is stated > there as well... > > I'm looking at it that the paragraphs of 101 referencing closets under > 12sf in dwelling units permits the omitting of sprinklers within these > closets. (Not any with equipment of course). There are some others > here that disagree, stating that since 13 addresses it, 101 isn't > applicable and that heads are required in the closets period. > > Anyone else have this kind of throw down in your offices? > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org <Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> > http://fireball.firesprinkler.**org/mailman/listinfo/**sprinklerforum< > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum> > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120927/a28e453c/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 _______________________________________________ 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
