Why is always have such heartburn with this Code versus Standard stuff is the misapplication of the idea. At the top the thought process the whole thing is the code when adopted, including the "code," including any specific requirements that may not be in the standard, the "standard itself," and any local amendments modifying the "code" or the "standard." What I've encountered in this 'code" trumps "standard" argument too many times that ANYTHING the AHJ wishes to use from the "code", found ANYWHERE in the "code," supersedes anything printed in the "standard." My argument is that the two, once adopted as a unit, act together, within the section to which they apply, and that the "standard" is not a child of a lesser god but an equal partner by marriage. I suppose you could argue that there was a conflict between the IBC paragraph and the NFPA paragraph, but my read would be that when combined the IBC piece requires a higher degree of protection, and that both were part of the same section of the CODE, that that would be the reason it trumped NFPA, not what words you use to distinguish the unadopted books from the private organizations, that neither, until adoption, carries the weight of law. And here's a real life example of how misusing these "words" can work: IBC 2009:703.4 Noncombustible tests. The tests indicated in sections.... (you can read the rest if you like). And 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Location (4) (which discusses omission of sprinklers from occupiable rooms, not concealed spaces). The AHJs argument. Since only noncombustible materials are discussed in the IBC, and because the "code" trumps the "standard" there is no such thing per "code" as limited-combustible materials as defined in NFPA 13:2007-3.3.11, even though 13 is adopted in 903.3.1.1, so you have to sprinkler limited-combustible concealed spaces. This is the same guy that said Roland didn't understand the intent of the code when handed an informal interpretation penned by our fearless leader that disagreed with the official's interpretation.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]>wrote: > The 2009 edition of the IBC added the balcony must have a roof or deck > above regarding required sprinkler protection. Nothing regarding whether > the overhang on the top floor is a driver. Additionally, the 2013 edition > of NFOA 13R finally acknowledge the supremacy of the code over standards in > driving such matters and added the below text. > > > 6.6.5* Except as provided for in 6.6.5.1, sprinklers shall not be required > in any porches, balconies, corridors, carports, porte cocheres, and stairs > that are open and attached. > > 6.6.5.1 Where a roof or deck is provided above, sprinklers shall be > installed to protect attached exterior balconies, attached exterior decks, > and ground floor patios serving dwelling units in buildings of Construction > Type V. > > 6.6.5.1.1 Where sidewall sprinklers are installed beneath decks or > balconies constructed with open wood joists, sprinklers shall be permitted > to be installed with deflectors not less than 1 in. (25 mm) or more than 6 > in. (152 mm) below the structural members, provided that the deflector is > not more than 14 in. (356 mm) below the underside surface of the deck. > systems, or other reliable means capable of maintaining a minimum > temperature between 40°F and 120°F (4°C and 48.9°C). > > Roland > > > > > On Oct 8, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Todd Williams wrote: > > The Connecticut Fire Safety Code (at least the part that is based on the >> IFC) includes a requirement that exterior balconies and patios be >> sprinkelred in 13R occupancies. However, this is being interpreted that >> they have to be protected regardless if there is any structure above or >> not. Consequently, we have to install sidewall sprinklers under 9" door >> moldings because they open on to a patio or deck (just got a plan rejected >> for this). This make no sense to me because they would most likely never >> activate, but this is being enforced as the law. Anybody else run into this? >> >> Todd G. Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, CT >> 860.535.2080 >> www.fpdc.com >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org <[email protected]> >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.**org/mailman/listinfo/**sprinklerforum<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://fireball.**firesprinkler.org/mailman/** > private/sprinklerforum/**attachments/20121012/502a72f6/**attachment.html<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121012/502a72f6/attachment.html> > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org <[email protected]> > 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 [email protected] 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/20121012/4215af2b/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
