Dave,
If it is a built up roof with tar and felt, it more than likely exceeds to 1000
but/sqft limit. It is always good to do your homework.
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)
860-553-3553 (tel:860-553-3553) (fax)
860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) (cell)
>
> On Mar 12, 2017 at 6:47 PM, <David Bitton
> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve and Todd,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The sentence that you quote continues with "...except where sprinklers are
> not required to be installed by 8.15.1.2.1 through 8.15.1.2.1 through
> 8.15.1.2.18...". Then, in article 8.15.1.2.1, we have "Concealed spaces of
> noncombustible and limited-combustible construction with minimal combustible
> loading having no access shall not require sprinkler protection."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The concealed space in this project meets all of these conditions, but only
> if the roof deck qualifies as "limited-combustible construction". So, it
> appears to me that we do have to split hairs and determine if this assembly
> meets the definition of limited-combustible construction. Please note also
> that 8.15.1.2.12 permits "exposed combustible insulation where the heat
> content...does not exceed 1000 Btu/ft2.", so the fact that we have a
> continuous flat surface does not by itself force us to install sprinklers.
> The main criteria appears to be the heat content of the material, which is
> not always easy to determine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I probably will wind up requiring sprinklers in this space, but I wanted to
> have a specific article to back up that decision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for your responses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Bitton
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve
> Leyton
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:07 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: RE: Built-up roof deck as a limited-combustible construction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with Todd. The standard says, “Concealed spaces of exposed
> combustible construction shall be protected …”
>
> This trumps the subjective hair splitting with regard to what constitutes
> limited combustible construction and to what extent combustible material
> might be allowed in limited amounts. You have one entire and continuous
> surface that encapsulates the concealed space(s) in question; that’s not
> limited, IMHO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve L.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:07 PM
> To: Sprinklerforum
> Subject: Re: RE: Built-up roof deck as a limited-combustible construction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the term Limited Combustible is purposely vague. Personally, I would
> think this is not limited since it covers the entire flat space and there is
> continuity. If a fire did get into that space, it could run over the entire
> structure with no good way for the fire department to fight it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What a local authority or insurance company would say is something else. You
> probably should consult with them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Todd G Williams, PE
>
>
>
>
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
>
>
>
>
>
> Stonington, CT
>
>
>
>
>
> 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc)
>
>
>
>
>
> 860-553-3553 (tel:860-553-3553) (fax)
>
>
>
>
>
> 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2017 at 5:47 PM, <David Bitton
> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, it is a flat roof, built in 1973. I have no doubt that it will burn,
> and I am classifying it as a combustible roof. (I know about the fire at
> the GM plant in Livonia.) My question is more along the line of: Can a
> noncombustible structure built on top of a typical built-up roof deck with
> combustible insulation meet NFPA 13's definition of "Limited-combustible
> construction"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Art
> Tiroly
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 5:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> (mailto:[email protected])
> Subject: RE: Built-up roof deck as a limited-combustible construction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it a flat roof?
>
>
>
> Is it covered with gravel or stone?
>
>
>
> If it is built of felt paper and asphalt/tar it will burn.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Tiroly
>
>
>
> ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly
>
>
>
> 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143
>
>
>
> 216-621-8899
>
>
>
> 216-570-7030 cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David
> Bitton
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:57 PM
> To: [email protected]
> (mailto:[email protected])
> Subject: Built-up roof deck as a limited-combustible construction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have a 35 ft high building being built adjacent to a 22 ft high building
> which has a built-up, insulated metal deck roof. The structural engineer has
> devised a sloped "snow shed" between the addition and the lower building in
> order to distribute the increased snow load at this juncture. This will
> create an inaccessible concealed space on the roof which will be of
> noncombustible construction, with the exception of its base, which will be
> the built-up metal deck roof of the existing building. Would you consider
> this as meeting the definition of "limited combustible construction", meaning
> that the space would not require sprinkler protection?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Bitton, ing./Eng.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quest Loss Control Services Inc.
>
>
>
> 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200
>
>
>
> Montréal, Québec
>
>
>
> H4P 1T8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> T: (514) 341-4545 C: (514) 996-7483
>
>
>
> www.questlosscontrol.com
> (../../../../Documents/Sara's%20Important%20Stuff/HR/www.questlosscontrol.com)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
