Was on vacation so allow a slightly delayed response. You are having
trouble because you are allowing logic to interfere with the
process. Logically the walls make a difference BUT They are ignored
except with the room design method. This is especially true with the
residential approach since tit is only a 4 sprinkler design for an
entire portion of the building (if not all of it).
Bottom line, you have to keep in mind that the section the criteria
is located in is critical. The room design is only applicable to the
density/area method within the occupancy hazard approach (section
11.2) and storage (section 12.10). The residential approach is a
separate design type. It was incorrectly numbered in the 02 ed ( and
prior) and never should have been 11.2.3.5 and is now under 11.3.
The same thing applies to the 3,000 sf remote area for unprotected
concealed combustible spaces. It does NOT apply to the residential
approach. Is that logical - NO. As a heads-up, that was mentioned
at the 13 meeting since it makes no sense but nothing has been done YET.
Roland
On Jan 29, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Greg McGahan wrote:
It appears the general consensus is that you can not mix the res
heads with
a room calc method. There was not a response from committee members
regarding the difference in compartment and one hour rated rooms.
We used QR
heads and the room method but I disagree in principal because of
the rating
of the rooms.
Thank you,
Greg McGahan
_______________________________________________
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)
