we are both typing English but not speaking the same language - are
you Scottish lol.
THis will be my last Forum email since I suspect that John and I are
the only ones determined to understand each other.
Allow me to adamantly state we concur on it being a bad idea to use
coated lumber AND that the AHJ should not allow it based on it not
being maintained (if that is defined as ever having to be reapplied).
This is a discussion on how it should be treated per the building
code and 13. Most of what you wrote does NOT conflict with what I am
saying though I believe it is being misapplied in this issue.
Exception 4 (in the 2003 edition) is about otherwise occupied rooms
(not concealed spaces) AND somebody as an AHJ must concur the space
qualifies. So in discussing concealed combustible spaces that
allowance does not apply. I am saying the space IS a combustible
concealed space. I am then following 13 on how to address
COMBUSTIBLE concealed spaces.
Setting that code interpretation aside, answering this question will
focus this discussion. When the building code does not require the
use of lumber treated with a fire retardant (and it isn't used for
any construction related issue such as type of construction, egress,
separation etc) and one elects to use it for an issue driven by a
standard, must it be the pressure treated type? My answer is
obviously a NO because the per the Code w non-treated wood would be
in full compliance.
Roland
On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:36 PM, John Drucker wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
