When I see stuff like this over and over, I sometimes want to make sure I’m not missing some miraculous technical innovation. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc) 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax) 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) (cell)
> > On Feb 13, 2026 at 12:18 PM, <Steve Leyton > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > Uhhhhh, no. Heat shoots right past the sprinkler an collects at the top; > depending on the size of the well, it will log down to the sprinkler at some > point, but unless you do a fire model that can reasonably predict response > time, it’s not a conforming condition. I cannot say how many times I’ve > seen a sprinkler 3’, 4’ and more below the lens of a skylight. That the GC > produced an approved plan from another jurisdiction is actually pretty funny > and I wonder if they have a bag of tricks where the can pull out “evidence” > of acceptability for other errors, omissions and discrepancies. “Look, > we did this in 2003 in Dry Gulch County, why can’t we do it here?” > > > > > > > > Several years ago, I got a plan review correction (I can’t even remember what > it was now) from City of SD that was based on an NFPA 13 requirement to > include something in the plans that we never had done as a regular practice > in this city. And it was an inconvenience at the time – it was probably to > put the restrictor settings for every PRV hose and control valve on the plans > for a high-rise, or calculate every seismic brace instead of the lazy man’s > worst-case scenario approach that only entailed doing a single detail for all > the lats and longs on the system. Anyway, our plan review section at the > time wasn’t known for its strident enforcement of every nuance in the > standard, so I asked the section supervisor why they were requiring it > because, “…we’ve never been asked to do that before.” And his answer was > a gem, “Just because we’ve been doing it wrong all this time doesn't mean > that we should keep doing it wrong.” So that “other” jurisdictional > approval means nothing except that the engineer who stamped the plan and AHJ > that approved it don’t know the standard. > > > > > > > > In terms of advice for Todd, I would pull out the book and try to teach them > that such a large skylight is a feature that warrants its own complement of > sprinklers, spaced to the extents of the well, from headwall to headwall both > ways, and that sprinklers must be positioned per the deflector distance > provisions of whatever type of sprinkler you’re using. It’s pretty clear > in the standard, methinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve L. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: daren welborn <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 7:02 AM > To: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: Sprinklers in skylights. > > > > > > > > > > > I would assume the theory is that the smoke plume or heat would riser along > the edge of the opening up to the skylight, therefore setting off the > sidewall sprinklers??? > > > > > > > > From: Fpdcdesign <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 9:04 AM > To: Sprinklerforum <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Sprinklers in skylights. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am fighting, yet again, old sprinkler in the skylight battle. The skylight > is about 60 ft long, 12 ft wide and 4.5 ft from the bottom of the skylight > opening to the peak. > > > > > > > > > > > > I showed a single line at the peak with uprights. Obviously to GC doesn’t > like that. They have a plan from a building in another state with sidewalls > in a soffit several feet down from the peak. This was stamped, approved and > installed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any justification (Code, fire test, etc) for the sidewall > arrangement? If not, why is this still getting approved? This has been > going on for a long time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Todd Williams > > > > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > > > > > Stonington, CT > > > > > > 860-608-4559 > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum > mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
