Well I would read the light hazard/Oh exemption for the 3xs rule again. It doesn't say you cannot use the 3xs rule, It just says that the requirements shall not apply. Just because the 3xs rule isn't required, does not mean it is not allowed. I would argue that the beam rule does not apply and that the obstruction isn't a solid/continuous obstruction. Try this. Change your sprinkler density to above .20/1500. It is miraculously is unobstructed. Drop it down to .20/1500 and all of a sudden the sprinkler head cannot operate effectively?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martinez, Dewayne Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: NFPA 13 (07ed) 8.6.5.1 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 ______________________________________________________________________ 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
