Go back to the beginning of the section: 8.15.7.1 Unless the requirements of 8.15.7.2, 8.15.7.3, or 8.15.7.4 are met, sprinklers shall be installed under exterior projections exceeding 4 ft (1.2 m) in width. This section does not give the AHJ the choice.
Also, from the handbook: FAQ Does the requirement of 8.15.7.1 require sprinklers under exterior roofs or canopies of combustible construction that exceed 4 ft (1.2 m) in width where no combustibles are stored or handled under the roof or canopy? Exterior canopies exceeding 4 ft (1.2 m) in width that are constructed of combustible materials must be sprinklered, unless they meet the requirements of 8.15.7.4 and they do not have combustible goods stored or handled underneath them. Canopies less than 4 ft (1.2 m) in width do not need to be sprinklered, regardless of construction type, provided no combustibles are stored beneath them. Balconies, such as those on multistory apartment buildings and that are under 4 ft (1.2 m) in width, do not require sprinkler protection. Balconies more than 4 ft (1.2 m) in width are required to be sprinklered, unless the requirements of 8.15.7.1 are met. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" -----Original Message----- From: Roland Huggins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Wording in NFPA 13 (2007) The problem is that different sections are written or modified at different times in response to different proposals and little consideration is given to consistency in the phrases or format used elsewhere in the document. The bottom line is that permitted means by NFPA 13. That does not mean permitted with AHJ approval or it would say that. The main example that comes to mind where AHJ makes the decision is Hose Connections in storage where 13 says shall be provided where required by the AHJ Roland On Mar 7, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Eric Tysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > Good morning all, > Here is a strange issue I ran into this morning. Take a look at 8.15.7.3 and > 8.15.7.4, "Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted" and then take a look > at 8.15.8.1.1 and 8.15.8.2 "Sprinkler shall not be required" and "Sprinklers > are not required". > > I have an AHJ that says since 8.15.7.4 states "shall be permitted to be > omitted" they stated we are not permitting them to be omitted. Has anyone > seen this before or know why there is different terminology used between the > sections. The way I see it is that sprinklers are either required by code or > allowed to be omitted if the criteria is met. > > > Eric Tysinger CET -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130307/e9eb949e/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
