I don't see how I can cite the building code, fire code or NFPA 101 if I am doing an NFPA 25 inspection. And as far as allowing openings in the ceiling, I am sure there are no sprinklers above the ceiling or that the tiles are removed due to the reasons cited in 13. I guess the best way to denote it is as a change in the building per chapter 4 since the code or fire official probably did not accept the building with missing tiles or they were not missing last year.
*Jay Stough* NICET IV LAYOUT NICET III ITM On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Larrimer, Peter A <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > I am not sure what your finding is, but I would be careful when trying to > use that for a missing escutcheon for a sprinkler. That paragraph in NFPA > 101 allows a penetration (of a pipe likely) in a smoke barrier that has a > fire resistance rating to be sealed by an non-combustible escutcheon plate > provided the gap around the pipe isn't greater than 1/2 inch. It would > only apply if the barrier was a smoke barrier with a fire resistance rating > and it is a membrane protection (one side of the wall) and it wouldn't > actually require an escutcheon plate. That paragraph in NFPA 101 will > likely not be a very helpful reference when trying to require a sprinkler > to have an escutcheon. Hope this helps. > > Thanks > > Pete Larrimer > VA > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John Allen, > CET, CFPS > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Missing ceiling tiles > > This is the code we use to support our findings: > > NFPA 101 (2012) 8.5.6.4 Where sprinklers penetrate a single membrane of > a fire resistance rated assembly in buildings equipped throughout with an > approved automatic fire sprinkler system, noncombustible escutcheon plates > shall be permitted, provided that the space around each sprinkler > penetration does not exceed 1/2 in. (13 mm), measured between the edge of > the membrane and the sprinkler. > > Best Regards, > > John Allen, CET, CFPS > President > > > > AFS: Allen Fire & Security > Your Safety is Our Success > Direct: 770.715.7261 | Office: 770.723.7280 Ext 2 | Fax: 678.894.4180 > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email This email > contains proprietary and confidential material for the sole use of the > intended recipient and is the sole property of AFS. Any review, use, > distribution or disclosure by others without the permission of the sender > is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or > authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by > reply email and delete all copies of the message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of michael G > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Missing ceiling tiles > > As a general rule we have always noted if there is missing tile in the > room, (near the edges away from the sprinklers. I know that I have always > written it up as a deficiency if the tile was out within a 5ft area around > the sprinkler. if it's a small closet or storage room and its missing a > tile or two, then I have written it down as a deficiency as well due to the > potential for the heat loss not allowing for the activation of the > sprinkler. > > As for the missing escutcheons, (this is my opinion) I don't see why they > wouldn't be a critical deficiency due to the listings on the sprinklers. > The sprinklers are listed with the plate to be installed in the manner for > the plate that it was installed with ( recessed, flush, Concealed, 401). > > But you are definitely correct in the statement that this is a gray area > in NFPA #25. I guess if we step back and think about the original > installation of the ceilings and sprinklers, when the system was bought off > by the fire marshal, wasn't it required to have all the tile in at the time > of his walk through? So why wouldn't the building still be required to have > all the tiles in place on a NFPA 25 inspection. > > Michael Goodis > Estimator, Project Manager > IL#000635 NICET#135586 > Key Fire Protection Enterprises LLC > 3200 Mike Padgett HWY > Augusta, GA 30906 > Office- (706)790-3473 > Cell- (706) 220-8822 > Fax: (706) 738-2119 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] > On Behalf Of Jay Stough > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:33 AM > To: Sprinkler Forum > Subject: Missing ceiling tiles > > We are having a discussion as to whether missing ceiling tiles are a > deficiency in NFPA 25. It does not specifically mention it, but it is a > non-critical deficiency if it is missing escutcheons and cover plates on > semi-recessed, recessed and concealed sprinklers. Wouldn't missing ceiling > tiles create the same problem in a room with a drop ceiling? I would think > it would really screw up the air flow of heat to the sprinklers if there > are 2' X 2' or 2' X 4' holes in the ceilings. > > *Jay Stough* > NICET IV LAYOUT > NICET III ITM > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
