Test have not received any correspondence in days.Thanks -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: shallow pitched roof.
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) _______________________________________________ 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)
