It is NOT limited-combustible as per the definition. There are several allowance based on size. The 10 sf pipe chase already identified is one possibility. If not an actual pipe chase (and the AHJ doesn’t like extrapolating to similar situations), look at 8.15.1.2.9 on the 55 sf one. It’s a bit confaluted because it starts with the size of the room below the obstructed space. I believe this is to avoid someone attempting to chop up the concealed space into small areas and saying all is well.
A chat with the AHJ is required. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jun 25, 2018, at 10:08 AM, James Litvak <[email protected]> wrote: > > **Sorry for the repeat send, first try had a typo in the subject** > > Often in wood construction there are void spaces caused by various > situations, such as the shape of a bathroom around the bathtub, odd shaped > dwelling units, etc. These spaces are inaccessible and have no insulation in > them. Are sprinklers required in them, and why / why not? > > For context, we (me and coworkers) don't put sprinklers in those spaces > because they don't have access. However, when questioned by an engineer, we > are questioning the validity of using section 8.15.1.2.1 because we're not > entirely sure if it's considered limited-combustible construction. Certainly > the gypsum board on the studs is limited, but the wood studs themselves > aren't. To help visualize, I've included a graphic. The areas in question are > marked with asterisks. > > https://i.imgur.com/v1NIpYB.png <https://i.imgur.com/v1NIpYB.png> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
