And what makes you think the intent of the standard is to IGNORE the
title and every single section that says CONCEALED SPACE as well as
past text that said attic. That's the problem of using logic without
all the pieces of the puzzle (especially for something that isn't all
that logical). This criteria was based solely on the impact of a fire
coming in through the eave. I think we can all agree that how the
heat interacts with the ceiling thus how it reaches the sprinklers
will differ between a fire through the eave and the standard fire plume.
Roland
On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:40 AM, A.P.Silva wrote:
For this same reason, I wouldn't agree that that the 2002
requirements would
not apply if there was no ceiling below the trusses. Sure the code
says
"unoccupied attics", would it be different if it was occupied? I
think we
should go with the intent of the code. At least that's my opinion.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
