I understand the rule but the lights are completely below the sprinklers
so I do not see why the AHJ would want us to comply with the beam rule.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 (07ed) 8.6.5.1

A.8.6.5.2.1.4 It is the intent of this section to exempt nonstructural
elements in light and ordinary hazard occupancies from the obstruction
criteria commonly called the "Three Times Rule." However, the other
obstruction rules, including the "Beam Rule" (8.6.5.1.2) and the "Wide
Obstruction Rule" (8.6.5.3.3), still apply. If an obstruction is so
close to a sprinkler that water cannot spray on both sides, it is
effectively a continuous obstruction as far as the sprinkler is
concerned and the Beam Rule should be applied.

It is not the intent of this section to permit the use of fixtures and
architectural features or treatments to conceal, obscure, or otherwise
obstruct sprinkler discharge. The requirement should be applied in
accordance with the performance objectives in 8.6.5.1.


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: Martinez, Dewayne [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 (07ed) 8.6.5.1

Perhaps I should have been clearer on the application.  This is a OH II
warehouse with bar joist construction and the lights suspended down from
the deck at an elevation beneath the sprinkler deflectors.  I thought
that I could either apply the exception 8.6.5.2.1.4 or stay at least
24in away from the lights with my sprinklers and be code compliant.
Have I been wrong all these years?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jeremy Frazier
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NFPA 13 (07ed) 8.6.5.1

Well if its light hazard I would point out to him that 8.6.5.2.2 would
be the applicable rule (if they are suspended from the ceiling), other
than that, the only other rules you can use are table 8.6.5.1.2 or
8.6.5.1.2 (2) 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Martinez, Dewayne
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:36 AM
To: SprinklerFORUM
Subject: NFPA 13 (07ed) 8.6.5.1

I have an AHJ telling me that a sprinkler must comply with both sections
of 8.6.5.1.  The problem I am having is the he is telling me that the
suspended lights must comply with the table 8.6.5.1.2 (beam rule)
because it is part of 8.6.5.1 even though the edge of the lights are at
least 24in away from the sprinkler.  The beam rule would require them to
be at least 3ft away to comply.  Any good idea how to respond to this?

Thanks,

Dewayne 

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to