The annex is where the committees get to test the waters with new information. How many things over the years have been moved from the annex to the main body of the code with some time? Not everything, sure, but if its important enough but too new, it will get added to the annex, then a few cycles later, it will get moved into the main body of the text.
The annex is never enforceable code, ever, just like IBC commentary or NFPA handbook commentary isn't enforceable code either. Rather its depth and explanation of the intent of the code writers. It helps add weight to certain positions in discussions and debates. That being said, the classification of occupancies do present an interesting exception. Would anyone (who isn't a PE or otherwise legally allowed to have an opinion) really try to call someone else out on where in the code it says a parking garage is OH1? We all know it is right, but the only place in the code (I'm talking strictly in reference to NFPA 13 here, not trying to open a code vs standard vs law debate) is the appendix is technically not enforceable. I like a lively debate and enjoy challenging things that are 'because they've always been' but I don't think I could honestly try to design a parking garage as light hazard and ask the AHJ to give me a code reference where it says a parking garage is OH1 and tell him that the appendix doesn't count. I see your conundrum John. Maybe there should be an up or out policy... If something isn't moved up to the main body of the code after 2-3 cycles, it gets removed from the appendix. -Ben Benjamin Young On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:47 PM, John Drucker <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron, > > I don't recall seeing this in the constitution or bill of rights......... > > "Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is > included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory > material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs." > > > > Problem is that when some one purchases the standard they are now > compelled to purchase 166 pages of commentary (NFPA-13-2013) and that's not > right. With that said then NFPA should offer a) the standard, b) the > standard with annex c) the handbook, etc etc. > > > > When an AHJ goes in the annex oh boy the phones start ringing, when a > designer contractor goes in the annex the AHJ is expected to conform. So > which way do you want it for us AHJ's ? > > > > PS just had an architect reference IBC commentary to which I replied how > about last month when I was using the commentary to support sprinklering a > building.....reply....well were not talking about that now. > > > > John > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Sprinklerforum [[email protected]] on > behalf of rongreenman . [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: porte cochere > > There was once a debate about attaching a Bill of Rights to the > Constitution. The yeas argued that having such a bill would define the most > basic of fundamental rights whilst the nays said the including it could be > construed to mean those rights were the only rights individuals had. (If > you are unawares of this and would like to read the actual debate they are > compiled as The Federalist Papers and most were authored by Thomas > Jefferson and James Madison using pseudonyms.) I mention this as this > debate reminds of that. I personally like the section(s) we're talking > about as I am constantly using the examples as a jumping off place. I like > them in the annex as it leaves them flexible as examples. I'd like them in > the body as they would then be definitive to a AHJs. The downside to the > former is that they can interpreted by the AHJ or even ignored. The > downside to the latter is they can be used as definitive and not as > examples, leaving anything not listed open to any interpretation. A > conundrum. In either case, I certainly would not like to see them outside > of the standard (although an article, in depth, in the handbook about how > to use them effectively would certainly be welcome). And the debate will > continue I hope. > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Have to agree, point well taken. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Drucker > > - Home > > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 11:15 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: porte cochere > > > > The operative term....."the annex". If I had my druthers there would be > > no > > more annex which unfortunately is used to insert things under the cover > of > > the standard that otherwise aren't part of the standard. We tell AHJ's > > that they cannot cite the annex yet on a routine basis we have > architects, > > engineers, technicians, owners doing just that. Either put the language, > > diagrams, tables etc. in the standard or place them in a handbook or > > commentary. > > > > PS, put a tab in the standard where the annex starts and you will see > half > > of the book is annex material so were paying for that too. > > > > Travis, not directed at you, just commentary in general. > > > > John Drucker, CET > > Assistant Construction Official > > Fire Protection Subcode Official > > Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] > > On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET > > Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 12:32 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: porte cochere > > > > Well that clears up the intent right there pretty much. > > > > It's interesting because the annex for the 2013 says that vehicles that > > are temporarily parked shall not be considered storage. It also states > > that transient storage such as that for delivered packages, planters or > > newspaper machines, etc..shall not be considered storage... > > > > That has been used in the areas where they determine the porte cochere to > > be LH. Yet, areas where they want it as OH say that it is like a parking > > garage. > > > > However, it seems the confusion has been cleared up for sure. > > > > Travis Mack, SET > > MFP Design, LLC > > 2508 E Lodgepole Drive > > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > > 480-505-9271 > > fax: 866-430-6107 > > email:[email protected] > > > > http://www.mfpdesign.com > > https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > > > > On 11/3/2015 10:26 AM, Tom Wellen wrote: > > > Fresh on the mind from a 2016 NFPA 13 update seminar - see new items > > > 10 > > and 11 below: > > > > > > A.5.3.1 Ordinary hazard (Group 1) occupancies include occupancies > > > having uses and conditions similar to the following: > > > (1) Automobile parking and showrooms > > > (2) Bakeries > > > (3) Beverage manufacturing > > > (4) Canneries > > > (5) Dairy products manufacturing and processing > > > (6) Electronic plants > > > (7) Glass and glass products manufacturing > > > (8) Laundries > > > (9) Restaurant service areas > > > (10) Porte cocheres > > > (11) Mechanical rooms > > > > > > > > > Tom Wellen - AFSA > > > > > >> On Nov 3, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Steve Mackinnon <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> OH1 here... > > >> > > >> Steven MacKinnon > > >> Fire Protection Division > > >> Hartcorn Plumbing and Heating, Inc. > > >> 850 South Second Street > > >> Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 > > >> Office 631-580-2300 Fax - 631-580-1090 > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Sprinklerforum > > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > >> Travis Mack, SET > > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:12 PM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: porte cochere > > >> > > >> What density do you guys design these structures to? LH or OH1? I've > > seen them done by ways, and just looking for some backing for either way. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Travis Mack, SET > > >> MFP Design, LLC > > >> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive > > >> Gilbert, AZ 85298 > > >> 480-505-9271 > > >> fax: 866-430-6107 > > >> email:[email protected] > > >> > > >> http://www.mfpdesign.com > > >> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 > > >> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink > > >> ler.org _______________________________________________ > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink > > >> ler.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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology > Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, > essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, > inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > _______________________________________________ > 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
