AHJ approval is not required where an exception is published and adopted. You could but only if the mechanical rooms CONTENTS were also WHOLLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE.
The argument you are making as a circular reference. If the space is determined to be NON COMBUSTIBLE in accordance with the BUILDING CODE then the NFPA-13 reference to NON COMBUSTIBLE concealed spaces is irrelevant. The BUILDING CODE provides this exception, that does not require prior approval on the part of the AHJ, at IBC 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Locations. 5. When we work from requirements in the BUILDING CODE we stay in the BUILDING CODE with regards to what constitutes NON COMBUSTIBLE construction, IBC Chapter 7 provides these parameters. For example the IMC (International Mechanical Codes definition varies from that of the IBC (Building Code) in that gypsum wall board is considered combustible, albeit limited combustible, whereas the IBC considers gwb NON COMBUSTIBLE. The discussion focuses on NON COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. The operative term being NON COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION not COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION or LIMITED COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. Don't forget about; IBC 703.4 Non Combustibility Tests states; "A material SHALL not be classified as non combustible building construction material if it is subject to an increase in combustibility or flame spread beyond the limitations herein established through the effects of AGE, MOISTURE or OTHER atmospheric conditions". In order for a building construction material to be considered non combustible it must comply with the provisions of IBC 703, ASTM E-136 and not be subject to an increase in combustibility or flame spread beyond the limitations herein established through the effects of age, moisture or other atmospheric conditions. That's really the clincher. Lets face it Roland no ones going to "re-apply" fire retardants in an otherwise combustible concealed space. Its set it and forget it. It's bad code language and allows constructors to go on the cheap. As for fire retardant "wood" look at the problem we're having with fire separation walls to the underside of FRT roofs, it can and will burn at nominal building fire temperatures . Lets do the right thing here, instead of what an FRT/COATINGS manufacturer promotes. "Any other code reference that is considered applicable?" Oh yes......... IBC 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Locations. 5. "In rooms or AREAS that are of non combustible construction with WHOLLY NON COMBUSTIBLE CONTENTS". What's that PVC Piping ,ROMEX Wiring, etc. doing in there ?, Yes there are both fruit, and yes they are different HOWEVER we're talking about fire protection and not apples, oranges. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: INTUMESCENT PAINT true but we are talking about apples and oranges - both are fruit but are different. Exception 5 allows (with AHJ approval) portions of a building to be unprotected. If YOU wanted to, you could have a mechanical room in a concrete basement with only pipes etc to exclude sprinklers. It does not apply to concealed spaces since 13 does not require NON- COMBUSTIBLE concealed spaces to be protected. As you pointed out, when this allowance for omission (and those in 13) are applied, the building is still considered protected THROUGH-OUT. Now what does this have to do with the discussion on coated vs pressure treated? We are in agreement that the code trumps the standards. But the code is not requiring treated lumber. The code allows standard lumber so it's done, sends you to 13, and is silent thereafter. SInce it is not a construction issue but an installation issue, 13 allows coated fire retardant lumber (with MAINTENANCE which I ASSUME means recoated in the future - not goin to do it spoken in the senior Bush accent that SNL had a blast with). Worth noting that treated does not equal non-combustible. Any other code reference that is considered applicable? Roland On Feb 8, 2007, at 11:28 AM, John Drucker wrote: > > IBC 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 Sprinkler Systems. > > "Where the provisions of this code REQUIRE that a building OR PORTION > thereof shall be equipped THROUGHOUT with an automatic fire sprinkler > system, sprinklers SHALL be installed THROUGHOUT in accordance with > NFPA-13 EXCEPT as provided in Sections 903.3.1.1.1, 903.3.1.2 and > 903.3.1.3" > > IBC 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Locations. > > 5. "In rooms or AREAS that are of non combustible construction with > wholly noncombustible contents". > > Where a building code drives the sprinkler requirement, the provisions > of the building code "trump" those of the referenced standards. > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official > New Jersey > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
