I’m not going to shoot holes in it.  I like it.  It makes sense.

 


Nick Maneen, SET 

c 704.791.7789

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:49 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mech room sans ceiling & full height walls

 

Are we SURE that 8.15.23.3 isn’t intended to be used in these situations? 

 

I know it says “on only one side”, but I think we might be interpreting that 
incorrectly. It is saying that the unsprinklered space is adjacent to the 
sprinklered space on only one side, not the other way around. 

 

So, while the sprinklered space (the mechanical room in this case) is open to 
the unsprinklered space on 4 sides (assuming the room is a rectangle)… you 
could say there are four unsprinklered spaces (north, south, east, and west) 
that are each open to the sprinklered space on only one side. 

 

In reality, it’s more like one giant unsprinklered space with a hole in the 
middle.

 

I would say that this scenario doesn’t match up very well with the wording of 
the code, or the figure, but that is more due to the literary difficulty of 
explaining this scenario. However, I would think that if you carried sprinkler 
protection the appropriate distance (half the remote area) out from all sides 
around the room then that meets the INTENT of this section pretty well. I mean, 
you would end up with a little more than a full remote area of sprinkler heads 
above the ceiling, centered around the area we would expect the fire to 
originate, so how is that not adequate protection.

 

Now someone shoot some holes in my theory.

 

-Kyle M

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Ben Young
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 9:16 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mech room sans ceiling & full height walls

 

I have to constantly remind the estimators that 8.15.23.3 only works if it's 
open on one side. 

 

Every time this had come up after we are awarded the project we've managed to 
convince the GC or owner to add a ceiling in these small rooms.

 

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:49 PM John Irwin <john.ir...@dynafire.com> wrote:

I've seen this. Never had too much trouble getting a ceiling added when I give 
them the add alternate for installing sprinklers at the roof. 

Checking wall heights is usually one of the first things I do when opening a 
fresh set of plans. Half a dozen different color highlighters and a cup of 
coffee... 

John Irwin 

DynaFire Inc. 

Tampa Fire Sprinkler Division 

727-282-9243 

This email was sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity, typographical 
errors, and grammatical gaffes.

On Apr 13, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Ed Kramer <e...@bamfordfire.com> wrote:

This is something we’re seeing occasionally and I’m wondering if others are 
seeing it also.

 

A typical office area within a noncombustible building.  All rooms within the 
greater area have lowered finished ceilings, are mostly light hazard, and the 
space above is noncombustible and (almost) concealed.  A small mechanical room 
(or 2 or 3) is located among the various offices.  This mech room is less than 
130 sf, so the floor area can be protected with 1 sprinkler.  However, the A/E 
has decided this room doesn’t need a ceiling and the perimeter walls can stop 
6” above the ceiling height of the adjacent rooms.  This makes the space above 
the surrounding offices noncombustible but not truly concealed.  See below. 

 

 

 

NFPA 13 (2013) tells me I have to sprinkler the entire noncombustible space 
above the offices.  8.15.23.3 doesn’t apply since it’s open on all 4 sides.  
We’re working with GC to convince them to add a ceiling or to extend the walls 
up to the roof deck.  It’s just way too easy to overlook this kind of seemingly 
minor detail when bidding, and difficult to get a change order (or 
walls/ceilings added) after the contract’s signed.

 

So, just wondering if anybody else is seeing this issue.

 

Ed Kramer

Bamford Fire

 

Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=OE-aEPuhj6Eb3TwCoW4fupeytmnYcCYnaTwhmnc_d5s&s=6JTg8ahBbnEizCbtj3TaOFbG34uXISqSg0_e1iBvl8M&e=>
 

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=Z_2A85VL7AQzoqudh6uOyS3bn8etxB7nLN8OBJwQd9A&m=OE-aEPuhj6Eb3TwCoW4fupeytmnYcCYnaTwhmnc_d5s&s=6JTg8ahBbnEizCbtj3TaOFbG34uXISqSg0_e1iBvl8M&e=>
 

-- 


Benjamin Young

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to