Hence why sprinklers are needed in all compartments adjoining occupied areas without exception !
I will never understand why the industry and or NFPA provides the weapons to allow others to avoid sprinklers. Its like providing the fox with the key to the hen house. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: thermal barrier Look at it from the perspective of the goal intended of the thermal barrier then wave that PE wand in discussing equivalencies. To be honest, I am amazed on the focus and concern about fire extending into the wall cavity for a life safety system when there is nothing restricting it from extending into the adjacent OCCUPIED room. Roland On Apr 11, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Todd Williams - FPDC wrote: > This is not a fire rating, but a thermal barrier. The question as I > see it is would the mineral wool provide the thermal barrier? The R > value (thermal resistance) for 1/2" sheetrock is 0.30. The R values > for mineral wool is 3.7 per inch. The thickness if the wool will be > 3/4" or greater. So my thought is that it would meet the criteria. > Am I out of line here? _______________________________________________ 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)
