Thanks every one. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Wellen Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 13 Chapter 8
Its an editorial error where the 2 ft dimension should've been removed when the figure was modified and published. The original proposal showed doors on both sides of the hallway with a 2 ft inset the same as Figure 6.4.6.3.3.2 in NFPA 13R 2013 ed. I was told some committee members felt uncomfortable with a 2 ft inset on the same wall on which sidewall sprinklers were mounted. Tom Wellen On Jun 12, 2013, at 9:35 AM, "Law, Kevin W" <[email protected]> wrote: > It is impossible to tell since dimensioning convention would demand a second > arrow. That and the fact it is in the appendix, the "2 ft 0 in. max" is very > hard to enforce. > > Kevin Law > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Seidl Jamie D. >> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:14 AM >> To: Sprinkler Forum ([email protected]) >> Subject: NFPA 13 Chapter 8 >> >> Has anyone looked at 2013 A.8.1.1 (3)(a) and if so, can you tell me >> what the 2'-0" dimension is intended to denote? >> >> Jamie Seidl >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fir > esprinkler.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
