Yep, Unfortunately the code doesn't read that way and you know AHJ's are always asked "where does it say that".
John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Server Closet To shorten this to two sentences. The gaseous system protects the equipment. The sprinklers are still required to protect the building and occupants. Roland On Apr 6, 2007, at 12:33 AM, John Drucker wrote: > We're on the same page. > > 2000 IBC 904.2 Para 2. reads; > > "Automatic fire extinguishing systems shall not be considered > alternatives > for the purposes of exceptions or reductions permitted by other > requirements > of this code" > > An automatic sprinkler system that is provided on the basis of and/ > or to > attain an exception or a reduction, i.e height and area increase, > corridor > fire resistance reduction, means of egress travel distance, etc. > must be > done so in accordance with the building code that provided the > exception or > reduction. Often 903.3.1.1.1 is cited to exempt specific locations > from > sprinkler protection. Condition 2. of this section requires the > approval of > the building official (fire subcode official in New Jersey). The > commentary > specifically notes "It is not the intent of condition 2 to omit > sprinklers > solely due to potential water damage. It should also be noted that > a desire > not to sprinkler a certain area, such as a computer room or > operating room, > does not fall within the limitations of the exception unless there is > something unique about the space that would result in water being > incompatible". > > Interesting how this sort of situation involves "critical" "high > value" > equipment thats stuck in some coat closet without proper > ventilation, fire > rated construction and or mission critical fire protection. I have > a number > of "day trader" operations like this. Each one is fully sprinklered > with > FM-200 total flooding systems NFPA-2001 compliant systems. In each > case > redundant server equipment is ready to go should the primary server > fail > regardless of a sprinkler related incident. > > The sprinkler stays. Protect the mission. > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) > New Jersey > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Chris Cahill > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Server Closet > > And these same nit wits don't care about sinks and toilets, severe > weather, > roof leaks, electrical issues, floods and all the other possible > causes of > damage. When I ask if they considered all the other possible > sources of > damage or interruption with fire or sprinklers being among the least > probable they usually put it in the new context and drop the > issue. Or at > least stop pushing to spend the owner's money (vs. theirs) and > compromise on > a concealer and high temp. > > Bigger rooms with high value critical infrastructure for a mutli- > million > business then maybe DIPA. But these are usually multiple redundant > remote > systems and thus any one site is not important and they accept the > risk all > 3 (or more) won't have problems at the same time. > > I'm not sure what John Drucker means about IFC 904.2. But be > careful about > substituting alternate agents for sprinklers. 904.2 ('00 ed.) last > sentence > may mean if the sprinklers are not in the room (closet) it is an > unsprinklered building. The only exceptions are in 903.3.1.1.1 and > I don't > see server rooms covered. At least the way I read it alternate > agents are > not sprinklers. > > Chris Cahill, P.E. > Fire Protection Engineer > Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. > > 763-658-4483 > 763-658-4921 fax > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Mail: P.O. Box 69 > Waverly, MN 55390 > > Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW > Waverly, MN 55390 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 2:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Server Closet > > The dry sidewall might appease them if all they were worried about was > an intermittent drip. What I hear more often is the fear of someone > busting the head and millions of gallons of water dumping into the > closet resulting in numerous IT personnel drownings and electronic > equipment getting wet and ruined. > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group > Mechanical Department > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.lg.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom > Duross > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Server Closet > > Thanks. > One of my thoughts to offer them was a dry type sidewall. > I can get it set about 10" below the steel deck and still hide the > pipe > above the corridor drop ceiling. > Maybe in a 360 degree rating? It would keep the water (wata) out > of the > room. > > Tom > > Dual Interlock Pre-Action? > > For one head in a closet? YIPERS! > > > DIPA?? > In my best Sherman: "Gee Mr. Peabody, what's that?" > > Tom > > Sounds like they're concerned with water damage and not mission > continuity. I would recommend a DIPA system. Either way, it seems > like > a lot of effort for one sprinkler. > > Inergen would likely require pressure relief venting. > > Ray Schmid > > I was wondering if I could get recommendations of advice to give a > client. > Their IT guy is bugging them about a head we put in a server closet. > It's just a 6' w x 3' deep closet with their rack and a little > ductless > ac unit. > No raised floor, liebert or big ups equipment and certainly not > sealed. > I offered high temp head but they're scared about water (wata). > Should I suggest total flooding inergen? Low temp rate of rise heat > detector? > I have to have an exhaust system installed with inergen, right? > I think they'd have to enclose the closet to keep in the gas. > > Thanks, > > Tom Duross > Go Red Sox > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
