What divergent opinions? You copied all the other opinions except
mine. You may have been referring to Craig's response.
Bob and I are on the same page - floating clouds are obstructions, not
the ceiling.
Now I did run down a tangent and mentioned a small opening (up to 12
inches) at the edge (and only the edge) of the room. That one has
room to discuss not putting sprinklers above the ceiling (which isn't
a floating cloud).
Roland
On Aug 5, 2008, at 8:24 AM, George Church wrote:
Do the last two posts reflect divergent opinions by two #13 committee
members? I thought it was all B&W.....
Seriously, if you have time to approach the AHJ (and make time,
obviously,
rather than risk your dwgs bounced...) and point out that if 4" wide
continous grilles were added about the perimeter, then it would no
longer be
a floating ceiling, and it would be a (noncombustible) concealed
space.
Then ask "what changes if the grilles are removed, from a
thermodynamic
perspective?" If your AHJ can handle that question intelligently,
you may
then have permission to omit protection above, and the taxpayers
don't need
to pay for the grilles.
I believe this would assist in merging the two trains of thought in
the
previous posts by Misters Huggins and Caputo- and I would highly
recommend
not disregarding the opinions of either one of these learned members
of #13
Committee:
1. RJH is also on the Standards Council
2. BC is a VP of your firm.
glc
_______________________________________________
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)
