I disagree with that assumption. Just because the lower structure is
a truss does not mean it is unobstructed. We had a case where an AHJ
was saying that when there was a 2x12 slaved to the top chord. You
have to look at what the heat flow sees at the intersection of the
roof and structural member. This should be obvious IF one starts
with the definitions BEFORE going to the examples. Yep, a broken
record that keeps...that keeps.....that keeps.....
What is unanswered, as I said yesterday, is how deep is too deep.
That should be addressed at the ROP meeting. The TC can't ignore it
two cycles in a row can they - lol.
Roland
On Oct 19, 2007, at 2:36 PM, A.P.Silva wrote:
If the beam/purlin construction is obstructed construction,
shouldn't there
be a minimum depth before it is termed such. Take the case of wood
bar joist
construction. The wood top chord can be any depth, but classified as
unobstructed construction. The purlins can be the same depth, and
further
apart (than the wood bar joists), and still be classified obstructed
construction?
Tony
_______________________________________________
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)
