Funny part is if it were a school, they'd fight tooth and nail not to sprinkler it at all.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: New topic,Foam Pit (Topic 2 Dead end sprinkler distance increase) We have a Gymnastics' training center in a OH II sprinkler facility. They have mats on the walls, and a 5'-0" deep "Foam filled Pit" at the end of a tumbling run out for spring board and vaulting practice. I don't see this as a particularly hazardous occupancy. Few sources of ignition, reasonable fuel load. A facility that if it were in any school in the country would be LH. Any comments? There was a post a few weeks ago about increased distance for a sprinklered vs. non-sprinklered dead end. I was just reading an article in Consulting and Specifying Engineer which claims that (F209) will change the 2009 IBC/IFC limits for sprinklered Dead End limits for occupancy E, U and I-1 from 20LF to 50LF when sprinklered. I don't remember who was asking but that's what I've got. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 _______________________________________________ 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)
