IT has been awhile since I looked at this but I think you are reading that section out of context. I think there are 2 trade-offs including the reduction of the passive rating that is restricted to the presence of a full 13 system throughout BUT the IBC considers a building protected throughout even when a 13R system is installed.
Awaiting input from our code boys and gals. Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Steele, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > There are some other building code (and possibly even insurance risk > assessment) issues that are likely to arise when using a NFPA #13R system; a > 13R system IS NOT a fully protected building. For example, ICC Table 508 > "required separation of occupancies" does not recognize 13R systems, so if > the building has or gets multiple uses, it's a "non-sprinkled" building, > typically doubling the required separation . > > A. Steele _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
