Todd - I think you answered your own question. As long a it is impractical, then the space should be allowed to be except, with the caveat of the 3,000 sq.ft. design area for that room.
Of course, convincing the AHJ that impractical is a good enough reason may be the challenge, especially if it is NOT considered impossible to sprinkler below the table. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. Mark, When I first started with Factory Mutual, I saw a lot of textile cutting tables, back when SE MA had a textile industry. The combustible loading was obvious. However, 13 says that anything over 4 ft wide has to have a sprinkler under it. The question here is can they be eliminated if the clearance to the floor is such that installing sprinklers is impractical, treating it as a concealed space instead of an obstruction. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) > On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:28 PM, "Mark A. Sornsin, P.E." <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Textile cutting tables also tend to have significant combustibles (besides > their construction) under and around them (a la Triangle Shirtwaist factory). > Something else to figure into the mix. > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Todd - Work > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. > > However, a traditional "cutting table" as referenced in .1 comes from the > textile industry. The tables were 4 ft wide or wider and very long (some > around 40 ft). These tables were wooden and were heavily built. They could be > moved but generally remained in place since they were extremely heavy and > took significant manpower to do so. My guess is that these tables (9 ft x 20 > ft framed with 2x8s) more likely resemble these than a piece of furniture. I > am trying to determine if they are being fixed to the floor. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > www.fpdc.com > 860-535-2080 (ofc) > >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 8.5.5.3.2 Sprinklers shall not be required under obstructions that are not >> fixed in place, such as conference tables. >> >> 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: Todd - Work [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:02 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: obstruction vs concealed space. >> >> NFPA 13 (2002) section 8.5.5.3.1 and equivalent sections of subsequent >> editions. >> >> Todd G Williams, PE _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
