Tell me what is the intent of the exception to IFC 2003 9054.3.2.1.4
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Racquet Ball Court And if the building is framed of wood? Or has accessory (and fire loaded) occupancies? How do we justify sending fire fighters toward or into a building subject to complete structural involvement in a fire that started in the rag pile that's kept in the shed adjacent to the outside of the buildings? And methinks you're projecting on the concrete box/plaster lid scenario. This thread didn't speak to that kind of construction and nearly every single building I've ever seen housing this use has been wood/Type V. Possibly every single one, but I am admittedly in an area that doesn't require wind and snow loading or the R-values associated with concrete boxes and plaster ceilings ... SML -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Racquet Ball Court Nope, it's the sprinkler forum, where we justify putting sprinklers over a swimming pool because they could drain the pool and fill it with pallets of class IV in racks! And where we believe we should put sprinklers beneath a 3'-11" metal canopy over the dock doors, on the outside of a building to keep a fire from getting inside, and as I check the 2009 IFC, it appears that we now believe it is completely necessary to install sprinklers in a concrete box with a plaster ceiling in which the only combustible material is the players, and the ball!?! And please don't misunderstand my motive, I have made my livelihood in the sprinkler industry for 37 years, but I am always opposed to spending anyone's money on so called fire protection the provides no measurable benefit! Mark at Aero -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 8:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Racquet Ball Court How many buildings out there exclusively contain sports courts? Last I checked they all include are offices, locker rooms, fitness and exercise rooms, mechanical and equipment rooms, etc. I had to double check that I wasn't subscribed to the BOMA Forum ... SML -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Racquet Ball Court I believe Scot has a legitimate point here with the exception that there is already precedence in one or more of the Model Codes for the omission of sprinklers in these facilities. I recall that there are several qualifications required, that the sport venue be located on the ground floor with proper exits to outside, and the building be of Type III (non-combustable) construction. So possible the solutions should consider removal of the sprinklers. Mark at Aero ----- Original Message ----- From: å... .... [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 09:36 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Racquet Ball Court How about getting stakeholders to consider whether NO sprinklers will be installed in the racquetball court based on the 1. low, if not insubstantial, fire loading in these rooms, 2. low frequency of fire ignition in these rooms? Prescriptions are prescriptions, and only on extenuating and justifiable circumstances are we allowed to invoke common sense to make an intervention. Someone, somewhere in the ladder of command, is paid good money for making decisions; should we not ask them (all of them) to quantify items # 1. and # 2? By putting numbers on them (these two items), we may evaluate our judgment as to "the need to sprinkler inside racquetball courts." Is asking to evaluate a life safety judgment too controversial, too critical and perceived as too personal of a nature? Is asking to evaluate a decision too much a cost imposition on a salaried vocation? The end goal, is to provide better service to the public and users of these courts through reasonable and appropriate judgment, with a collateral benefit of benefiting future judgment through the examination of details in the current and past decisions. It seems to be, that presently, fires starting from inside a racquetball court have more import than fires starting in, say...many of the homes and dwellings where we sleep. Realizing that we in design & installation are but one of the last links in the chain-of-events occurring when a decision is made to include fire sprinklers, we might still pause to consider whether those making the first links would do better to offer the numbers behind their "good judgment", and state how, where and whether they come together to decide their Go/No-Go decision. Scot Deal Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130321/04fcea8d/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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
